1 





t 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




00005^0015 




IT I 



*> 



°*u • " ° a? ^ • * n ^ 

■5S if 1 C,^ ^ rC\\ «K //M a *S» Vfc 

ky r^s ©US * «> ^ * hO£ak * at "^ • 



o V 





■«^- r.«* 











'o*1* A 


















;• .* 










* 




o « o ^ ^ 

^^ /^fe\ \/ ,a&"« %^ /^^- 












^ *As 







JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. 



THE LIFE 



OF 



JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN 



BY 



JOHN S. JENKINS, 

AUTHOR OF THK « HISTORY OF THE WAR WITH MEXICO ;" « LIFB OF 
JAMES K. POLK," ETC., ETC. 



Justum ac tenacem propositi virura, 
Non civiura ardor prava jubentiuro, 
Non vultus instantis tyranni, 
Mente quatit solida. 

Horat. Carm. iii. 3. 



AUBURN: 
JAMES M. ALDEN. 

1850. 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1850, by 

JAMES M. ALDEN. 
In the Clerk's Office for the Northern District of New York. 









iQ 1$ 



BTKlttOTYPED BY THOMAS B. SMITH, 
216 WILLIAM STREET, S. Y. 



& 



T O THE 



^nipU nf Intttlj turn I. inn 



THIS VOLUME 



IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED. 



PREFACE. 



-«-•-•- 



One after another of the remarkable men of our 
country has gone down to the tomb, until the number 
of the distinguished dead far exceeds that of the 
living who have become illustrious. The history 
and fame of the former constitute the glory and 
greatness of the country, and the promise of the 
latter is its hope and admiration. To portray the 
character of the one is to excite the emulation of 
the other ; and to depict the virtues of a single 
individual, may be to scatter the seeds that will 
germinate, and bud, and blossom, and bring forth 
similar fruit, in due season. 

For more than thirty-five years, Mr. Calhoun has 
been one of the most prominent statesmen in the 
American Union, and during that long period their 
history is woven together. No important question 
has been agitated since he first entered Congress, 
in which he has not participated, or with which he 






Vlll PREFACE. 



has not in some way or other been connected. His 
biography, therefore, if executed as it ought, should 
be full of interest to the American reader. 

I have been aware, from the first, of the diffi- 
culties and embarrassments in the way of preparing 
a memoir that would be acceptable to both of the 
parties occupying extreme grounds on the sectional 
questions with which Mr. Calhoun was identified, 
It has been my aim, however, to present all things 
truly ; and, having done this, to rely upon the 
generous kindness of the public, It cannot be that 
passion and prejudice will follow the dead, to 
disturb the quiet slumbers of the grave ; and if 
these are forgotten, there can be no doubt that jus- 
tice will be done to the memory of Mr. Calhoun. 
He was emphatically a great man,- — a model states- 
man, — one of those who visit us, like angels, " few 
and far between." 

He lived in eventful times, and his history is full 
of important incidents. A minute account, therefore, 
of the details of his life would require a much 
larger volume than the present. Bat it is the design 
of this work to exhibit his character with sn indent 
distinctness to satisfy the general reader, and faith- 
fully to represent his course and position with reference 
to the important questions that arose during his 



PREFACE. IX 

public career. In order to accomplish this object, 
I have found it necessary to insert a number of his 
speeches, that he might be allowed to speak for 
himself far more ably and eloquently than I could 
hope to do. 

In making the selections of the speeches, I have 
preferred to take those delivered on subjects of great 
temporary importance, or which are likely to possess 
a permanent value from their connection with the 
federal constitution and its proper interpretation. 

No apology need be offered for occupying so large 
a space with the history of Nullification. It was 
the great episode in the life of Mr. Calhoun, and 
the principle of state interposition, or state veto, was 
very dear to him. " If you should ask me the word," 
said he, " that I would wish engraven on my tomb- 
stone, it is Nullification." 



CONTENTS. 



-•-©-•- 



CHAPTER I. 

FAQS 

Roman Virtue and Integrity — Often paralleled in America — Char- 
acter of Mr. Calhoun — His Reputation — Attachment of the People 
of South Carolina to him — Influence — Ancestors — His Father 
— Characteristic Traits — His Birth 15 



CHAPTER II. 

Early Development of Character — His Education — Enters College 
— Graduates — Studies Law — Commences Practice — Professional 
Reputation — Enters the Arena of Politics — Elected to the State 
Legislature — Services in that Body — Popularity among his Con- 
stituents — Chosen a Member of Congress, 25 



CHAPTER IH. 

Enters the House of Representatives — Appointed on the Committee 
of Foreign Affairs— Speech on the War— His Character — Stand- 
ing — Support of Madison's Administration and the War Meas- 
ures — The Restrictive System — Remarks of Mr. Calhoun — Course 
in regard to the Embargo — Speech on the Loan Bill, . . $7 



CHAPTER IV. 

Reelection of Mr. Calhoun — Results of the War— The Commercial 
Treaty — Course of Mr. Calhoun — His Speech — The United State* 



Xll CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Bank — Mr. Dallas' Bill — Opposition of Mr. Calhoun to this Meas- 
ure — Its Defeat — Chairman of the Committee on the Currency — 
Report of a Bank Bill — Speech — Passage of the Bill, . . 64 



CHAPTER V. 

Changes in Politics — Consistency of Mr. Calhoun — Resolutions of 
1816— The Direct Tax— Speech— Tariff Act of 1816— Views of 
Mr. Calhoun — Principle of the Law — The Military Academy — 
The Compensation Act — Temporary Displeasure of his Constitu- 
ents — Internal IniDrovements — Veto of Mr, Madison, . .100 



CHAPTER VI. 

Expiration of his Service in the House of Representatives — Ap- 
pointed Secretary of War — Management of the Affairs of the 
Department — Financial System — Other Improvements intro- 
duced — Reorganization of the Army — System of Fortifications 
— Medical Statistics — Missouri Compromise — Tariff Act of 1824 
— Internal Improvements, 140 



CHAPTER VII. 

Presidential Election of 1824 — Mr. Calhoun chosen Vice-President 
— Character as Presiding Officer — Refusal to leave his Seat when 
a Tie Vote was anticipated — Decision in regard to the Right to 
call to Order — Opposition to the Measures of Mr. Adams — Re- 
election of Mr. Calhoun — The TariiY Question — Matured Opin- 
ions — Address, . .152 



CHAPTER VIII. 

Nullification — The Protective System introduced — Act of 1828 — 
Opposition in the Southern States — State Interposition proposed 
— Mr. Calhoun's Views — Election of General Jackson — Distribu- 
tion and Protection combined — Dissolution of the Cabinet — Dif- 
ficulty between Mr. Calhoun and General Jackson — Letter to 



CONTEXTS. Xlll 

PAGE 

Governor Hamilton — Convention in South Carolina — Mr. Cal- 
houn elected a Senator iu Congress, 188 



CHAPTER IX. 

Journey to Washington — Takes his Seat in the Senate — Special 
Message of the President — Mr. Calhoun's Resolutions — The Force 
Bill — Speech against it — The Debate — Argument of Mr. Web- 
ster — Reply of Mr. Calhoun — Character of this Effort — Passage 
of the Compromise .Act — Peaceful Termination of the Contro- 
versy, 246 



CHAPTER X. 

Removal of the Deposits — Opposition of Mr. Calhoun to the Jack- 
son Administration — Course in Regard to the Bank — Executive 
Patronage — Reelected to the Senate — Abolition Excitement — 
Speech on the Reception of Abolition Petitions — Admission of 
Michigan — Separation of the Government from the Banks — 
Speech of Mr. Calhoun — Reply to Mr. Clay, . . . -316 



CHAPTER XI. 

Resolutions on the Subject of Abolitionism — Opinions of Mr. Cal- 
houn — Assumption of State Debts — Bankrupt Bill — Case of the 
Enterprise — Support of Mr. Van Buren — Election of Harrison 
and Tyler— The Public Lands— Distribution— The Bank Bills- 
Defence of the Veto Power — Mr. Clay's Resolutions — Tariff of 
1842— Ashburton Treaty, 379 



CHAPTER XII. 

The Oregon Question — Resignation of Mr. Calhoun — Appointed 
Secretary of State — Annexation of Texas — Administration of 
Mr. Polk — Declines Mission to England — Returns to the Senate 
— Memphis Convention — Improvement of Harbors and Rivers — 
Triumph of Free Trade — War with Mexico — Continued Agita- 



XIV CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

tion of tbe Slavery Question — Southern Address — Mr. Clay's 
Plan of Compromise — Last Speech of Mr. Calhoun, . . . 399 



CHAPTER XIIL 

Death of Mr. Calhoun — Funeral Honors — His Family — Personal 
Appearance — Character — Habits in Private Life — Mental Pow- 
ers — Style as a Speaker and Writer — Work on Government — 
Manner as an Orator — Course as a Statesman — Popularity- — 
Memorv. 4-41 



LIFE OF JOHN C. CALHOUN. 



«--.. 



CHAPTER I. 

Roman Virtue and Integrity — Often paralleled in America — Character 
of Mr. Calhoun — His Reputation — Attachment of the People of South 
Carolina to him — Influence — Ancestors — His Father — Characteristic 
Traits— His Birth. 

When Brennus, the Gallic chieftain, and the dark 
and uncouth, but stalwart and intrepid warriors, whom 
he led forth from their transalpine homes down upon 
the fair and fertile plains of Italy, entered the gates of 
the Eternal City, — and their startling cry of " Vce vic- 
tis /" — woe to the conquered ! — awoke a thousand echoes 
in her ancient streets and thoroughfares, in her palaces 
and her temples, — her defeated soldiery and her af- 
frighted inhabitants fled for refuge to the Capitoline 
Hill, " that high place where Rome embraced her 
heroes." But some few of the nobler spirits of the re- 
public, reverencing the memories of the past, cherish- 
ing its patriotic impulses, and practicing its virtues, 
remained in the Forum, and seated in their curule 
chairs, fearlessly and calmly awaited the approach of 
the enemy. 

Rude and unpolished as were the invaders, though 



16 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1733. 

reckless of danger and indifferent to peril, they were 
instantly struck with astonishment at this exhibition of 
firmness and devotion, of patriotism and virtue ; and 
thev regarded with awe, the sublime majesty of the 
countenances in which dignity and determination were 
so nobly blended. These Romans were the types of a 
once numerous class, whose character has been heldyn 
admiration for ages, in every clime and among every 
people to whom their history is known. 

Roman virtue — that virtue which constituted the 
bright peculiar trait of statesmen, and soldiers, and citi- 
zens, in the earlier and purer days of republican sim- 
plicitv, and whose light, though shorn of many of its 
beams, was not wholly lost amid the glory and splendor 
of the Empire, till the throne of the Caesars had crum- 
bled into dust — the virtue thus exemplified and thus 
ennobled in Rome, has been often paralleled, if not sur- 
passed, in the great republic of the West. While we 
have in some degree imitated her form of government, 
we have also copied the traits of character which ren- 
dered her distinguished men so famous ; and it is justly 
esteemed no small praise among us, to be commended 
for the possession and practice of Roman virtue and 
Roman integrity. It is, too, a fit subject for congratu- 
lation, that our country, though so young in years, 
has produced so many men deservedly entitled to this 
high distinction : they have not appeared only once in 
a generation or an age, but like the branches of the 
golden tree which opened the portals of the lower world, 
when one is torn away another is not wanting,* — when 

* Primo avulso uon deficit alter 

Aureus. Virgil, udZneid, vi. 143. 



1733.] ATTACHMENT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 17 

one is numbered with the dead, another springs up to 
fill his place, to emulate his virtues, and to follow his 
example. 

Not the least worthy, and not the least conspicuous 
among them, was the subject of this memoir. For 
nearly forty years he occupied a prominent place among 
the most eminent statesmen of America. His reputa- 
tion, furthermore, had crossed the Atlantic, where he 
had himself never been, and had elicited the most 
flattering encomiums from those his;h in ability and in 
station. At home, among his own countrymen, his in- 
dependence of thought, his fearlessness in the expression 
of his opinions, and his unbending and uncompromising 
integrity, caused him to be generally admired even 
among those who differed from him the most widely 
upon political questions. While, therefore, his senti- 
ments with reference to matters of public policy were 
not always cordially approved, but were oftentimes 
earnestly opposed, his character and his talents were 
held in esteem in everv section of the Union, and it 
may be trulv said that his fame was national, and was 
bounded only by the confines of our territory. 

For much the greater portion of the period during 
which he was in public life, he held a seat in the legis- 
lature of his native state, or represented her in one or 
other of the two houses of Congress. To the people 
of South Carolina he was closely endeared, as well by 
the sterling qualities of his head and heart, as by his 
fidelity in watching over and protecting their interests, 
and his long and arduous services in the councils of the 
state and nation. Open and frank in the avowal of 
his sentiments upon the great questions that divided 



18 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1733. 

the public mind — prompt and energetic — faithful and 
true — he commanded alike their respect and their ad- 
miration. 

To most of them personally a stranger, yet when his 
name was uttered, it awoke many a lofty and animat- 
ing recollection, and around it clustered hosts of stir- 
ring associations. They looked up to him as their leader 
and their head, — they trusted in him to carry them safe 
through every emergency, and to sustain them in every 
crisis. Did danger threaten them from within or with- 
out, he was invoked as the guardian genius who pos- 
sessed the power to heal all dissensions, and to triumph 
over all opposition. Did the gathering clouds on the 
political horizon forebode aught of disaster, to him thev 
applied as to one who could not be daunted by the 
omens that filled the souls of others with terror and 
awe ; and when the warning voice, the counsels, or the 
admonitions, of that statesman-planter, were heard roll- 
ing down from his distant home at the foot of the Blue 
Ridge over the lowlands of South Carolina, few there 
were who did not heed and obey them. Like a gallant 
knight he was foremost in every position of danger, and 
when his banner was unfurled in the midst of the timid 
and faint-hearted, they raised their eyes to it in the 
confidence of faith, and turned from it full of encourage- 
ment and hope. 

PossL's-iii'j; such traits of character, and uniting with 
them a commanding intellect, and an indomitable will, 
it is not surprising that he exerted an influence so wide- 
spread and so powerful. " When a firm decisive spirit 
is recognized," says Mr. Foster, " it is curious to see 
how the space clears around a man, and leaves him 



1733.] INFLUENCE AND MEMORY. 19 

room and freedom. * * A conviction that he 

understands and that he wills with extraordinary force, 
silences the conceit that intended to perplex or instruct 
him, and intimidates the malice that was disposed to 
attack him. There is a feeling, as in respect to Fate, 
that the decrees of so inflexible a spirit must be right, 
or that, at least, they will be accomplished."* 

It was so with Mr. Calhoun. Without an effort on 
his part, other than the natural operations of his mind 
and character in the progress of development, he ac- 
quired a reputation of which his fellow-citizens were 
exceedingly proud, as they well might be. They soon 
learned to love him, and loving, to admire and revere. 
For twenty years he was first and foremost in their 
affections, and the dearest hopes of thousands followed 
him to the silence of the tomb. In their hearts his mem- 
ory must long be enshrined, and the spot hallowed by 
the presence of all that remained of his mortal existence 
must be to them as " holy ground," — like Mecca to the 
followers of the Prophet, or the meadow of Griitli to 
the peasantry of Switzerland. It is consecrated earth 
that contains beneath its bosom 

" Ashes which make it holier, dust which is 
Even in itself an immortality." 

The paternal ancestors of Mr. Calhoun came origi- 
nally from Ireland, that fruitful hive from which sprung 
most of the early inhabitants of the eastern slopes of 
the Alleghany mountains. His grandfather emigrated 
with his family to Pennsylvania in the year 1733 ; they 
afterward removed to Virginia, and in 1756 finally 

* Essay on Decision of Character, Letter ii. 



20 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1756. 

established themselves permanently in the province of 
South Carolina, near the base of the Blue Ridge, and 
in the fine healthy region drained by the tributaries of 
the Savannah river. 

His father, Patrick Calhoun, was born in Donegal, 
but was a mere child when the family left Ireland. 

mi 

Accustomed from his earliest years to sights and scenes 
well calculated to heighten the natural daring of his 
spirit, and to render him courageous and self-reliant ; 
familiar with hardship and privation, with war and 
bloodshed; he was distinguished for his boldness and 
intrepidity, his determined energy, and his manly inde- 
pendence, — traits which were reproduced and reex- 
emplified in the life and character of his distinguished 
son. The family were driven from their temporary 
home in Virginia by the hordes of ruthless savages let 
loose upon the frontier settlements in consequence of 
the defeat of Braddock, and in the hostile encounters 
that took place previous to their removal, Patrick was 
old enough to take a prominent part. He subsequently 
participated in the frequent skirmishes between the 
white settlers of South Carolina and the Cherokee In- 
dians previous to and during the Revolution. For a 
long time he commanded a company of rangers, who 
did good service in keeping off the marauders that 
hovered upon the borders of the infant colony, seeking 
an opportunity to plunder and destroy. 

His occupation was that of a farmer or planter, and 
he resided upon and cultivated the same place where 
his father's family first settled, and which now belongs 
to the heirs of his youngest son. He was married in 
1770 to a young lady, whose maiden name was Cald- 



1776.] HIS FATHER. 21 

well, and who was a native of Charlotte county, Vir- 
ginia. Her father was a Scotch- Irish Presbyterian, and 
was one of the founders of the settlement on Cub Creek. 

The elder Mr. Calhoun was an industrious and enter- 
prising citizen. To great natural shrewdness he added an 
inquiring disposition, and a boldness and independence 
of sentiment that were rarely imitated. He thought, and 
spoke, and acted for himself. He was a Whig in prin- 
ciple long before the Revolution, and when the crisis 
came, he did not hesitate publicly to make profession of 
" the faith that was in him." He battled manfully against 
the Tories ; he contended with them in speech ; and at 
the head of his rangers aided essentially in putting them 
down with the strong hand. Both the Caldwells and 
the Calhouns were active and zealous Whigs. As 
such, they were the peculiar objects of the red man's 
hate and the Tory's vengeance. Of three of the Cald- 
wells able to bear arms during the revolutionary strug- 
gle, one was murdered by the Tories in cold blood, in 
his own yard, after his house had been set on fire ; an- 
other fell dead at the battle of the Cowpens, being 
pierced w T ith thirty sabre wounds ; and the third was 
taken prisoner by the enemy, and confined for nine 
months in a loathsome dungeon at St. Augustine. 

Nothing but his stout arm and intrepidity of soul, 
saved Patrick Calhoun from experiencing a similar fate. 
" Upon one occasion," — says a memoir of his son, pub- 
lished by his political friends during the presidential 
canvass of 1843-4, — " with thirteen other whites, he 
maintained a desperate conflict for hours with the 
Cherokee Indians, until overwhelmed by superior num- 
bers, he was forced to retreat, leaving seven of his 



22 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1782. 

companions dead upon the field. Three days after, 
they returned to bury their dead, and found the bodies 
of twenty-three Indian warriors, who had perished in 
the same conflict. At another time, he was singled 
out by an Indian distinguished for his prowess as a 
chief, and for his skill with the rifle. The Indian tak- 
ing to a tree, Calhoun secured himself behind a log, 
from whence he drew the Indian's fire four times by 
holding a hat on a stick a little above his hiding-place. 
The Indian at length exhibited a portion of his person 
in an effort to ascertain the effect of his shot, when he 
received a ball from his enemy in the shoulder, which 
forced him to fly. But the hat exhibited the traces of 
four balls by which it had been perforated. The effect 
of this mode of life upon a mind naturally strong and 
inquisitive was to create a certain degree of contempt 
for the forms of civilized life, and for all that was mere- 
ly conventional in society. He claimed all the rights 
which nature and reason seemed to establish, and he 
acknowledged no obligation which was not supported 
by the like sanctions. It was under this conviction 
that, upon one occasion, he and his neighbors went 
down within twenty-three miles of Charleston, armed 
with rifles, to exercise a right of suffrage which had 
been disputed : a contest which ended in electing him 
to the Legislature of the state, in which body he served 
for thirty years. Relying upon virtue, reason, and 
courage, as all that constituted the true moral strength 
of man, he attached too little importance to mere infor- 
mation, and never feared to encounter an adversary 
who, in that respect, had the advantage over him : a 
confidence which many of the events of his life seemed 



1782.] POLITICAL VIEWS. 23 

to justify. Indeed, he once appeared as his own advo- 
cate in a case in Virginia, in which he recovered a 
tract of land in despite of the regularly- trained dispu- 
tants, who sought to embarrass and defeat him. He 
opposed the Federal Constitution, because, as he said, 
it permitted other people than those of South Carolina 
to tax the people of South Carolina, and thus allowed 
taxation without representation, which was a violation 
of the fundamental principle of the revolutionary 
struggle. 

" We have heard his son say, that among his earliest 
recollections was one of a conversation when he was 
nine years of age, in which his father maintained that 
government to be best which allowed the largest amount 
of individual liberty compatible with social order and 
tranquillity, and insisted that the improvements in po- 
litical science would be found to consist in throwing off 
many of the restraints then imposed by law, and deemed 
necessary to an organized society. It may well be sup- 
posed that his son John was an attentive and eager audi- 
tor, and such lessons as these must doubtless have served 
to encourage that free spirit of inquiry, and that intrepid 
zeal for truth, for which he has been so much distin- 
guished. The mode of thinking which was thus en- 
couraged may, perhaps, have compensated in some 
degree for the want of those early advantages which 
are generally deemed indispensable to great intellectual 
progress. Of these he had comparatively few. But 
this was compensated by those natural gifts which 
give great minds the mastery over difficulties which 
the timid regard as insuperable. Indeed, we have here 
another of those rare instances in which the hardiness 



24 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1782. 

of natural genius is seen to defy all obstacles, and de- 
velops its flower and matures its fruit under circum- 
stances apparently the most unpropitious." 

Patrick Calhoun died in 1795. His wife was a wo- 
man of rare excellence, whose many virtues endeared 
her to all that knew her, and are still held in grateful 
remembrance bv those who witnessed the evidences of 
her worth and profited by her kindness. They had five 
children, four sons and a daughter, of whom John Cald- 
well Calhoun was the youngest save one. He was 
born in Abbeville District, South Carolina, at the resi, 
dence of his father, on the 18th of March, 1782, and 
was named after his maternal uncle, Major John Cald- 
well, who was murdered by the Tories. 



CHAPTER II. 

Early Development of Character — His Education — Enters College — 
Graduates — Studies Law — Commences Practice — Professional Repu- 
tation — Enters the Arena of Politics — Elected to the State Legisla- 
ture — Services in that Body — Popularity among his Constituents — 
Chosen a Member of Congress. 



o 



Born and nurtured amid the closing scenes of the 
Revolution, and when its dying thunders were still 
heard faintlv echoing in the distance, the stirring inci- 
dents of that protracted contest, and the legends and 
traditions of border warfare, were among the first and 
earliest recollections of young Calhoun. They were 
often recounted in his hearing, and left their impress 
upon his character, in its sternness, and what might 
almost be called its harshness. He inherited, too, from 
his father, the active energy, firmness and determina- 
tion, that characterized him, and from his mother's 
family, their ardency of feeling, and their high-toned 
and impulsive enthusiasm. When a lad he was re- 
marked for his thoughtful disposition, his quickness of 
apprehension, his decision of character, and his steady 
and untiring perseverance in the accomplishment of 
any plan he had conceived, or in the pursuit of any 
object which he desired to secure. 

The early trials and struggles, the hopes and disap- 
pointments, of those who are successful in life, what- 

2 



26 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1795. 

ever may be the calling or profession, differ oftener in 
kind than in character. Few minds are so peculiarly 
constituted as not to require to be submitted to the 
ordeal, when in the early stages of development. The 
discipline of the young is like the task of the pruner. 
What is unsightly or unproductive is removed, in order 
that the thrifty or more promising shoots may grow 
with greater vigor, and bud and blossom with in- 
creased luxuriance. " It is no doubt a true observa- 
tion," remarked Bishop Patrick, " that the ready way 
to make the minds of youth go awry, is to lace them 
too hard, by denying them their just freedom ;" but 
when the regimen is properly advised and faithfully ob- 
served, it is healthful, and strengthens and invigorates, 
the character for the sterner and severer duties of ad- 
vanced years. Chance sometimes fairly thrusts her 
favors upon those who seem little inclined to profit by 
them, but like Dead Sea fruits, though fair and tempt- 
ing without, thev turn to dust and ashes within. For- 
tune is proverbially a blind goddess, and she has never 
maintained a very high reputation for her impartiality. 
The French have a political maxim, that " Time is a 
statesman's principal assistant."' This is equally ap- 
plicable to the career of every man, in boyhood and in 
age : — Time, Patience, Energy, and Perseverance, like 
the brothers in the fairy tale, find nothing so difficult 
that it cannot be overcome. 

In the life of Mr. Calhoun, this truth is strikingly ex- 
emplified. The advantages which he possessed in so 
far as an education was concerned, while he remained 
at home, are now exceeded by those enjoyed by the 
child of the humblest citizen of his native state. The 



1795.] HIS EDUCATION. 27 

upper country of Virginia and the two Carolinas was 
settled mainly by Irish and Scotch-Irish emigrants, — a 
very different class of people from the more polished 
and refined Huguenots and descendants of the Cava- 
liers, who dwelt in the lower vallevs of their noble 
rivers. The former were poor in this world's goods, 
but rich in those sterling qualities of heart and soul 
that fitted them so well for the hardships and priva- 
tions of a pioneer life, and which constituted a richer 
legacy to their children than the wealth secured by their 
industry among the hills and dales of their forest 
homes. Among such a people, the means of instruc- 
tion were, of course, quite limited, and children were 
taught the rudiments of learning principally by their 
parents. 

Mr. Calhoun was indebted for the most part to his 
father and mother for the information acquired in his 
youth. There were few or no schools in the sparsely 
settled district where they resided, and the only branches 
of education taught in them were reading, writing, and 
arithmetic. When he was old enough they sent him 
to an ordinary country school, at which he learned all 
that his teacher could communicate. These draughts 
from the fountain, turbid though it was, created a thirst 
for more ; but as there was not a single academy in the 
whole upper region of the state, and none within fifty 
miles, except in Columbia county, Georgia, of which 
Mr. Waddell, a Presbyterian clergyman who had mar- 
ried his sister, was the principal ; and as his father was 
unwilling, both on account of his limited means, and 
of his aversion to the learned professions, to send him 
away from home ; he reached the age of thirteen with- 



28 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1795. 

out having added anything to his stock of knowledge, 
except the limited amount of information he was able 
to pick up in conversation with others, and to obtain 
from the few books to which he had access. 

At the age of thirteen he was placed under the care 
of his brother-in-law, and commenced a course of 
study in the higher branches. He had but just made 
a beginning in this new occupation, with which he was 
perfectly delighted, when the death of his father took 
place. His sister shortly after died, and Mr. Waddell 
immediately discontinued his academy. John con- 
tinued to reside with his brother-in-law ; but as the 
latter was absent for the greater part of the time, en- 
gaged in the performance of his clerical duties, he was 
left to depend upon his own resources for amusement. 
The plantation was in a remote district, and he had not 
a single white companion, with the exception, at inter- 
vals, of Mr. Waddell, and an occasional visitor. In 
this situation, had he fallen a victim to listlessness and 
ennui, it could not have been wondered at. But his 
active mind required employment, and in the house 
he found what proved to him a rich mine of intellec- 
tual wealth. 

His brother-in-law was the librarian of a small circu- 
lating library, and to this he at once resorted. INo one 
counselled or directed him in the selection of books for 
perusal, but as if led by instinct, he discarded fiction 
entirely, and occupied himself, to the exclusion of all 
lighter reading, with historical works. These were few 
in number, but he devoured them eagerly. Rollin's 
Ancient History ; Robertson's Life of Charles V., and 
History of America; and a translation of Voltaire's 



1800.] FONDNESS FOR READING HISTORY. 29 

Charles XIL, first attracted his attention. He was 
completely fascinated with the inexhaustible store of 
information which the French scholar had accumu- 
lated, and admired the well-turned periods and graceful 
and easy diction of Scotland's great historian, while he 
hung with delight upon the thrilling account of the dar- 
ing exploits of the Swedish monarch. Having dis- 
patched these volumes, he took up the large edition of 
Cook's Voyages, Brown's Essays, and Locke on the 
Understanding, the last of which he was unable to 
finish, for the reason that he had already overtasked his 
strength, and his health had become considerably im- 
paired. 

"All this was the work of but fourteen weeks. So 
intense was his application that his eyes became seri- 
ously affected, his countenance pallid, and his frame 
emaciated. His mother, alarmed at the intelligence of 
his health, sent for him home, where exercise and 
amusement soon restored his strength, and he acquired 
a fondness for hunting, fishing, and other country sports. 
Four years passed away in these pursuits, and in atten- 
tion to the business of the farm while his elder brothers 
were absent, to the entire neglect of his education. 
But the time was not lost. Exercise and rural sports 
invigorated his frame, while his labors on the farm gave 
him a taste for agriculture, which he always retained, 
and in the pursuit of which he found delightful occupa- 
tion for his intervals of leisure from public duties. 

" About this time an incident occurred upon which 
turned his after life. His second brother, James, who 
had been placed at a counting-house in Charleston, re- 
turned to spend the summer of 1800 at home. John 



30 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1800. 

had determined to become a planter ; but James, ob- 
jecting to this, strongly urged him to acquire a good 
education, and pursue one of the learned professions. 
He replied that he was not averse to the course ad- 
vised, but there were two difficulties in the way : one 
was to obtain the assent of his mother, without which 
he could not think of leaving her, and the other was 
the want of means. His property was small, and his 
resolution fixed : he would far rather be a planter than a 
half-informed physician or lawyer. With this determi- 
nation, he could not bring his mind to select either 
without ample preparation ; but if the consent of their 
mother should be freely given, and he (James) thought 
he could so manage his property as to keep him in funds 
for seven years of study, preparatory to entering his 
profession, he would leave home and commence his 
education the next week. His mother and brother 
agreeing to his conditions, he accordingly left home the 
next week for Dr. Waddell's, who had married again, 
and resumed his academy in Columbia county, Georgia. 
This was in June, 1800, in the beginning oi his nine- 
teenth year, at which time it may be said he com- 
menced his education, his tuition having* been pre- 
viously very imperfect, and confined to reading, writ- 
ing, and arithmetic, in an ordinary country school. His 
progress here was so rapid that in two years he entered 
the junior class of Yale College, and graduated with 
distinction in 1804, just four years from the time he 
commenced his Latin grammar. He was highly 
esteemed by Dr. Dwight, then the president of the 
college, although they differed widely in politics, and 
at a time when political feelings were intensely bitter. 



1804.] ENTERS COLLEGE. 31 

The doctor was an ardent Federalist, and Mr. Calhoun 
was one of a very few, in a class of more than seventy, 
who had the firmness openly to avow and maintain the 
opinions of the Republican party, and, among others, 
that the people were the only legitimate source of polit- 
ical power. Dr. Dwight entertained a different opinion. 
In a recitation during the senior year, on the chapter 
on Politics in Paley's Moral Philosophy, the doctor, 
with the intention of eliciting his opinion, propounded 
to Mr. Calhoun the question, as to the legitimate source 
of power. He did not decline an open and direct 
avowal of his opinion. A discussion ensued between 
them, which exhausted the time allotted for the recita- 
tion, and in which the pupil maintained his opinions 
with such vigor of argument and success, as to elicit 
from his distinguished teacher the declaration, in speak- 
ing of him to a friend, that the young man had talent 
enough to be President of the United States, which he 
accompanied by a prediction that he would one day 
attain that station."* 

At the commencement, an English oration was as- 
signed to Mr. Calhoun. The subject which he selected 
was — " The qualifications necessary to constitute a per- 
fect statesman" — from which it may be inferred that 
he had already set his heart upon a political career, and 
that he loved to contemplate that beau ideal in states- 
manship, which he afterward attempted to illustrate in 
his. own career. Having taken his degree, he com- 
menced the study of the law, which he regarded as the 
stepping-stone to the higher position at which he aimed. 
He spent three years in his legal studies, and in miscel- 

* Biographical Sketch of Mr. Calhoun, 1843. 



32 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1807. 

laneous reading. For about half this time, he attended 
the celebrated law school at Litchfield, Connecticut, 
under the charge of Judge Reeve and Mr. Gould, and 
at which so many of the most eminent members of the 
profession in the northern and southern states received 
their legal education. At this school he acquired and 
maintained a high reputation for ability and application, 
and in the debating society formed among its members, 
he successfully cultivated his talents for extemporary 
speaking, and in this respect is admitted to have ex- 
celled all his associates. 

On leaving Litchfield, Mr. Calhoun repaired to 
Charleston, and entered the office of Mr. De Saussure, 
subsequently Chancellor of South Carolina, in order to 
familiarize himself with the statute laws of his state, 
and the practice of the courts. In the office of Mr. De 
Saussure, and of Mr. George Bowie, of Abbeville, he 
completed his studies. He then presented himself for 
examination, was duly admitted to the bar in 1807, and 
commenced practice in the Abbeville District. He im- 
mediately took a place in the front rank of his profes- 
sion, among the ablest and most experienced of its- 
members. Clients flocked around him, and a lucrative 
practice was the reward of his long and severe course 
of study. Had he remained at the bar, his great talents 
must have enabled him to attain a high standing, but 
he left it so soon that this can only be a matter of spec- 
ulation. The reputation which he acquired during the 
short period of his forensic career, was certainly an 
enviable one, and augured most auspiciously for the 
future. 

"While he w r as yet a student," says the memoir be- 



1808.] A MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATURE. 33 

fore quoted, " after his return from Litchfield to Abbe- 
ville, an incident occurred which agitated the whole 
Union, and contributed to give to Mr. Calhoun's life, 
at that early period, the political direction which it has 
ever since kept — the attack of the English frigate 
Leopard on the American frigate Chesapeake. It led 
to public meetings all over the Union, in which resolu- 
tions were passed expressive of the indignation of the 
people, and their firm resolve to stand by the govern- 
ment in whatever measure it might think proper to 
adopt to redress the outrage. At that called in his na- 
tive district, he was appointed one of the committee to 
prepare a report and resolutions to be presented to a 
meeting to be convened to receive them on an ap- 
pointed day. Mr. Calhoun was requested by the com- 
mittee to prepare them, which he did so much to their 
satisfaction, that he was appointed to address the meet- 
ing on the occasion before the vote was taken on the 
resolutions. The meeting was large, and it was the 
first time he had ever appeared before the public. He 
acquitted himself with such success that his name was 
presented as a candidate for the state Legislature at 
the next election. He was elected at the head of the 
ticket, and at a time when the prejudice against law- 
yers was so strong in the district that no one of the 
profession who had offered for many years previously 
had ever succeeded. This was the commencement of 
his political life, and the first evidence he ever received 
of the confidence of the people of the state — a confi- 
dence which has continued ever since constantly in- 
creasing, without interruption or reaction, for the third 
of a century ; and which, for its duration, universality, 

2* 



34 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1808. 

and strength, may be said to be without a parallel in 
any other state, or in the case of any other public 
man. 

"He served two sessions in the state Legislature. 
It was not long after he took his seat before he distin- 
guished himself. Early in the session an informal 
meeting of the Republican portion of the members was 
called to nominate candidates for the places of Presi- 
dent and Vice-President of the United States. Mr. 
Madison was nominated for the presidency without op- 
position. When the nomination for the vice-presi- 
dency was presented, Mr. Calhoun embraced the oc- 
casion to present his opinion in reference to coming 
events, as bearing on the nomination. He reviewed 
the state of the relations between the United States 
and Great Britain and France, the two great belliger- 
ents which were then struggling for mastery, and in 
their struggle trampling on the rights of neutrals, and 
especially ours ; he touched on the restrictive system 
which had been resorted to by the government to pro- 
tect our rights, and expressed his doubt of its efficacy, 
and the conviction that a war with Great Britain 
would be unavoidable. ' It was,' he said, ' in this 
state of things, of the utmost importance that the 
ranks of the Republican party should be preserved un- 
disturbed and unbroken by faction or discord.' He 
then adverted to the fact, that a discontented portion 
of the party had given unequivocal evidence of rally- 
ing round the name of the venerable vice-president, 
George Clinton (whose re-nomination was proposed), 
and of whom he spoke highly ; but he gave it as his 
opinion, that should he be nominated and reelected, he 



1808.] HIS POPULARITY. 35 

would become the nucleus of ail the discontented 
portion of the party, and thus make a formidable divi- 
sion in its ranks should the country be forced into war. 
These persons, he predicted, would ultimately rally 
under De Witt Clinton, the nephew, whom he de- 
scribed as a man of distinguished talents and aspiring 
disposition. To avoid the danger, he suggested for 
nomination the name of John Langdon, of New Hamp- 
shire, of whom he spoke highly both as to talents and 
patriotism. 

" It was Mr. Calhoun's first effort in a public capacity. 
The manner and matter excited great applause ; and 
when it is recollected that these remarks preceded the 
declaration of war more than three years, and how 
events happened according to his anticipations, it 
affords a striking proof of that sagacity, at so early a 
period, for which he has since been so much distin- 
guished. It at once gave him a stand among the most 
distinguished members of the Legislature. During the 
short period he remained a member, he originated and 
carried through several measures, which proved in 
practice to be salutary, and have become a permanent 
portion of the legislation of the state." 

His course in the Legislature secured him an ex- 
traordinary degree of popularity and influence in the 
section of the state in which he resided. His constit- 
uents were especially proud of him, and many there 
were at that early era of his fortunes, who predicted 
for him a brilliant destiny ; and, in truth, the promise 
of his life and conduct warranted these high expecta- 
tions. " Give a man nerve," says an eloquent writer, 
" a presence, sway over language, and, above all, en- 



36 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1810. 

thusiasm, or the skill to stimulate it ; start him in the 
public arena with these requisites, and ere many years, 
perhaps many months, have passed, you will either see 
him in high station, or in a fair way of rising to it."* 
In none of these essentials to success was Mr. Cal- 
houn wanting, as those who knew him will promptly 
bear witness. He had nerve and intrepidity, enthu- 
siasm, the air of one born to command, and fine argu- 
mentative powers ; and his words were like the verba 
ardentia of Cicero, captivating and convincing, melt- 
ing all hearts and fairly burning into every ear that 
listened. 

As is well known, the members of the twelfth Con- 
gress were generally selected with particular reference 
to the apprehended war with Great Britain. The 
prominent stand taken by Mr. Calhoun in the Legisla- 
ture had drawn public attention to him, and the Repub- 
licans of his congressional district demanded his selec- 
tion as their representative. He accordingly presented 
himself before the people for their suffrages, and in the 
fall of 1810 was elected by a triumphant majority over 
his opponent. 

* Francis' Orators of the Age. 



CHAPTER III. 

Enters the House of Representatives — Appointed on the Committee of 
Foreign Affairs — Speech on the War — His Character — Standing — • 
Support of Madison's Administration and the War Measures — The 
Restrictive System — Remarks of Mr. Calhoun — Course in regard to 
the Embargo — Speech on the Loan Bill. 

However true it may be that the Jay treaty was the 
best that could have been obtained from the British 
ministry at the time it was concluded, it is equally cer- 
tain that it only relieved the administrations of Wash- 
ington and Adams from the difficulties and embarrass- 
ments in our foreign relations against which Mr. Jef- 
ferson was scarcely able to maintain himself, and which 
at one time threatened to overthrow the administration 
of his successor. All the troublesome questions which 
had been so long postponed or evaded were inherited 
by Madison as a legacy, and further delay in their set- 
tlement was no longer possible. Happiness and pros- 
perity smiled upon the home industry of the country ; 
peace and contentment dwelt in all her borders ; but the 
dark shadow thrown from the other side of the Atlantic 
fell upon and clouded everything that was so bright and 
fair. 

The first session of the twelfth Congress commenced 
on the 4th day of November, 1811, — the two Houses 



38 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1811. 

having been called together, by executive proclamation, 
in advance of the regular day fixed upon by law for the 
commencement of the session, on account of the threat- 
ening aspect of affairs. Mr. Calhoun took his seat in 
the House of Representatives at the opening of the ses- 
sion. He was still a young man, being only in his 
thirtieth year, but he was not entirely unknown even 
among the many distinguished members of the House. 
His talents and the zeal and ability which he had often 
manifested in defending the administration, and advo- 
cating decisive measures of resistance in opposition to 
the grasping policy of Great Britain, induced his ap- 
pointment by the then Speaker, Henry Clay, to the 
second place on the Committee of Foreign Affairs. The 
chairman of the committee was Peter B. Porter, of 
New York. 

Mr. Calhoun's debut as a speaker was made on the 
19th of December, 1811, during the debate on the reso- 
lutions reported from the committee of which he was a 
member, in the month of November previous, author- 
izing immediate and active preparations for war. Able 
speeches in behalf of the resolutions had already been 
delivered by Mr. Porter and Mr. Grundy, and it de- 
volved on Mr. Calhoun to reply to the tirade of abuse 
and invective which the eloquent and versatile John 
Randolph had poured out on the policy shadowed forth 
in the resolutions. Mr. Calhoun had before submitted 
a few remarks on the Apportionment Bill, but had not 
attempted anything like a set speech. A report of his 
speech on the resolutions of the committee has been 
preserved, and it will amply testify how well he main- 
tained the reputation which had preceded him, and ren- 



1811.] SPEECH ON THE WAR. 39 

dered justice to himself and to the people whom he 
represented. 

SPEECH ON THE WAR RESOLUTIONS. 

Mr. Speaker — I understood the opinion of the Committee on Foreign 
Relations differently from what the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Ran- 
dolph) has stated to be his impression. I certainly understood that the 
committee recommended the measures now before the house as a prep- 
aration for war ; and such, in fact, was its express resolve, agreed to, 
I believe, by every member except that gentleman. I do not attribute 
any wilful misstatement to him, but consider it the effect of inadvertency 
or mistake. Indeed, the report could mean nothing but war or empty 
menace. I hope no member is in favor of the latter. A bullying, 
menacing system has everything to condemn and nothing to recommend 
it — in expense it almost rivals war. It excites contempt abroad and 
destroys confidence at home. Menaces are serious things, which ought 
to be resorted to with as much caution and seriousness as war itself, 
and should, if not successful, be invariably followed by war. It was 
not the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Grundy) that made this a war 
question. The resolve contemplates an additional regular force; a 
measure confessedly improper but as a preparation for war, but un- 
doubtedly necessary in that event. Sir, I am not insensible to the 
weighty importance of this questiou, for the first time submitted to this 
house, to compel a redress of our long list of complaints against one of 
the belligerents. According to my mode of thinking, the more serious 
the question, my convictions to support it must be the stronger and more 
unalterable. War, in our country, ought never to be resorted to but 
when it is clearly justifiable and necessary ; so much so as not to require 
the aid of logic to convince our understanding, nor the ardor of elo- 
quence to inflame our passions. There are many reasons why this 
country should never resort to it but for causes the most urgent and 
necessary. It is sufficient that, under a government like ours, none but 
such will justify it in the eyes of the people ; and were I not satisfied 
that such is the present case, I certainly would be no advocate of the 
proposition now before the house. 

Sir, I might prove the war, should it follow, to be justifiable, by the 
express admission of the gentleman from Virginia ; and necessary, by 
facts undoubted and universally admitted, such as he did not attempt 



40 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1811. 

to controvert. The Extent, duration, and character of the injuries re- 
ceived ; the failure of those peaceful means heretofore resorted to for 
the redress of our wrongs, are my proofs that it is necessary. Why 
should I mention the impressment of our seamen — depredation on every 
branch of our commerce, including the direct export trade, continued for 
years, and made under laws which professedly undertake to regulate 
our trade with other nations ? — negotiation, resorted to again and again, 
till it became hopeless, and the restrictive system persisted in to avoid 
war, and in the vain expectation of returning justice? The evil still 
continued to grow, so that each succe?-sive year exceeded in enormity the 
preceding. The question, even in the opinion and admission of our op- 
ponents, is reduced to this single point : which shall we do. abandon or 
defend our own commercial and maritime rights, and the personal 
liberty of our citizens employed in exercising them ? These rights are 
vitally attacked, and war is the only means of redress. The gentleman 
from Virginia has suggested none, unless we consider the whole of his 
speech as recommending patient and resigned submission as the best 
remedy. It is for the house to decide which of the alternatives ought to 
be embraced. I hope the decision is made already, by a higher authority 
than the voice of any man. It is not in the power of speech to infuse 
the sense of independence and honor. To resist wrong is the instinct 
of nature ; a generous nature, that disdains tame submission. 

This part of the subject is so imposing as to enforce silence even on 
the gentleman from Virginia. He dared not to deny his country's 
wrongs, or vindicate the conduct of her enemy. But one part only of his 
argument had any, the most remote relation to this point. He would 
not say that we had not a good cause for war, but insisted that it was 
our duty to define that cause. If he means that this house ought, at this 
stage of its proceedings, or any other, to specify any particular viola- 
tion of our rights to the exclusion of all others, he prescribes a course 
which neither good sense nor the usage of nations warrants. When we 
contend, let us contend for all our rights — the doubtful and the certain, 
the unimportant and essential. It is as easy to contend, or even more 
so, for the whole as for a part. At the termination of the contest, secure 
all that our wisdom, and valor, and the fortune of war will permit. 
This is the dictate of common sense, and such, also, is the usage of na- 
tions. The single instance alluded to, the endeavor of Mr. Fox to com- 
pel Mr. Pitt to define the object of the war against France, will not 
support the gentleman from Virginia in his position. That was an ex- 



1811.] SPEECH ON THE WAR. 41 

traordinary war for an extraordinary purpose, and was not governed by 
the usual rules. It was not for conquest or for redress of injury, but to 
impose a government on France which she refused to receive — an object 
so detestable that an avowal dare not be made. 

I might here rest the question. The affirmative of the proposition is 
established. I cannot but advert, however, to the complaint of the 
gentleman from Virginia, when he was first up on this question. He 
said he found himself reduced to the necessity of supporting the negative 
side of the question before the affirmative was established. Let me tell 
that gentleman that there is no hardship in his case. It is not every 
affirmative that ought to be proved. Were I to affirm that the house 
is now in session, would it be reasonable to ask for proof ? He who 
would deny its proof, on him would be the proof of so extraordinary a 
negative. How, then, could the gentleman, after his admission, and 
with the facts before him and the nation, complain ? The causes are 
such as to warrant, or, rather, to make it indispensable in any nation 
not absolutely dependent to defend its rights by arms. Let him, then, 
6how the reason why we ought not so to defend ourselves. On him, 
then, is the burden of proof. This he has attempted. He has en- 
deavored to support his negative. Before I proceed to answer him 
particularly, let me call the attention of the house to one circumstance, 
that almost the whole of his arguments consisted of an enumeration of 
the evils always incidental to war, however just and necessary ; and 
that, if they have any force, it is calculated to produce unqualified sub- 
mission to every species of insult and injury. I do not feel myself 
bound to answer arguments of that description, and if I should allude to 
them, it will be only incidentally, and not for the purpose of serious 
refutation. 

The first argument which I shall notice is the unprepared state of the 
country. Whatever weight this argument might have in a question oi 
immediate war, it surely has little in that of preparation for it. If our 
country is unprepared, let us prepare as soon as possible. Let the 
gentleman submit his plan, and if a reasonable one, I doubt not it will 
be supported by the house. But, Sir, let us admit the fact with the 
whole force of the argument ; I ask, whose is the fault ? Who has been 
a member for many years past, and has seen the defenceless state 
of his country, even near home, under his own eyes, without a single 
endeavor to remedy so serious an evil ? Let him not say, " I have acted 
in a minority." It is not less the duty of the minority than a majority 



42 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1811. 

to endeavor to defend the country. For that purpose principally we 
are sent here, and not for that of opposition. 

We are next told of the expenses of the war, and that people will 
not pay taxes. Why not ? Is it a want of means ? What, with 
1,000,000 tons of shipping ; a commerce of $100,000,000 annually ; 
manufactures yielding a yearly product of $150,000,000, and agricul- 
ture thrice that amount ; shall we, with such great resources, be told 
that the country wants ability to raise and support 10,000 or 15,000 
additional regulars ? No : it has the ability, that is admitted ; but will 
it not have the disposition ? Is not our course just and necessary ? 
Shall we, then, utter this libel on the people ? Where will proof be 
found of a fact so disgraceful ? It is said, in the history of the coun- 
try twelve or fifteen years ago. The case is not parallel. The ability 
of the country is greatly increased since. The whiskey tax was unpop- 
ular. But, as well as my memory serves me, the objection was not so 
much to the tax or its amount as the mode of collecting it. The peo- 
ple were startled by the host of officers, and their love of liberty 
shocked with the multiplicity of regulations. We, in the spirit of im- 
itation, copied from the most oppressive part of the European laws on 
the subject of taxes, and imposed on a young and virtuous people the 
severe provisions made necessary by corruption and the long practice 
of evasion. If taxes should become necessary, I do not hesitate to 
say the people will pay cheerfully. It is for their government and 
their cause, and it would be their interest and duty to pay. But it 
may be, and I believe was said, that the people will not pay taxes, be- 
cause the rights violated are not worth defending, or that the defence 
will cost more than the gain. Sir, I here enter my solemn protest 
against this low and " calculating avarice" entering this hall of legisla- 
tion. It is only fit for shops and counting-houses, and ought not to dis- 
grace the seat of power by its squalid aspect. Whenever it touches 
sovereign power, the nation is ruined. It is too short-sighted to defend 
itself. It is a compromising spirit, always ready to yield a part to 
save the residue. It is too timid to have in itself the laws of self- 
preservation. Sovereign power is never safe but under the shield of 
honor. There is, sir, one principle necessary to make us a great peo- 
ple — to produce, not the form, but real spirit of union, and that is to 
protect every citizen in the lawful pursuit of his business. He will 
then feel that he is backed by the government — that its arm is his arm. 
He then will rejoice in its increased strength and prosperity. Protec- 



1811.] SPEECH ON THE WAR. 43 

tion and patriotism are reciprocal. This is the -way which has led 
nations to greatness. Sir, I am not versed in this calculating policy, 
and will not, therefore, pretend to estimate in dollars and cents the 
value of national independence. I cannot measure in shillings and 
pence the misery, the stripes, and the slavery of our impressed sea- 
men ; nor even the value of our shipping, commercial and agricultural 
losses, under the orders in council and the British system of blockade. 
In thus expressing myself, I do not intend to condemn any prudent 
estimate of the means of a country before it enters on a war. That is 
wisdom, the other folly. The gentleman from Virginia has not failed 
to touch on the calamity of war, that fruitful source of declamation, by 
which humanity is made the advocate of submission. If he desires to 
repress the gallant ardor of our countrymen by such topics, let me 
inform him that true courage regards only the cause ; that it is just 
and necessary, and that it contemns the sufferings and dangers of war. 
If he really wishes well to the cause of humanity, let his eloquence be 
addressed to the British minister, and not the American Congress. 
Tell them that, if they persist in such daring insult and outrage to a 
neutral nation, however inclined to peace, it will be bound by honor 
and safety to resist; and their patience and endurance, however great, 
will be exhausted ; that the calamity of war will ensue, and that they, 
and not we, in the opinion of the world, will be answerable for all its 
devastation and misery. Let a regard to the interest of humanity stay 
the hand of injustice, and my life on it, the gentleman will not find it 
difficult to dissuade his countrymen from rushing into the bloody scenes 
of war. 

We are next told of the danger of war. We are ready to acknowl- 
edge its hazard and misfortune, but I cannot think that we have any 
extraordinary danger to apprehend, at least none to warrant an acqui- 
escence in the injuries we have received. On the contrary, I believe 
no war would be less dangerous to internal peace or the safety of the 
country. But we are told of the black population of the Southern 
States. As far as the gentleman from Virginia speaks of his own per- 
sonal knowledge, I shall not question the correctness of his statement. 
I only regret that such is the state of apprehension in his part of the 
country. Of the southern section, I too have some personal knowl- 
edge, and can say that in South Carolina no such fears, in any part, are 
felt. But, sir, admit the gentleman's statement : will a war with Great 
Britain increase the danger ? Will the country be less able to suppress 



44 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1811. 

insurrections ? Had we anything to fear from that quarter — which I 
do not believe — in my opinion, the period of the greatest safety is 
during a war, unless, indeed, the enemy should make a lodgment in 
the country. It is in war that the country would be most on its guard, 
our militia the best prepared, and the standing army the greatest. 
Even in our Revolution, no attempts were made at insurrection by that 
portion of our population ; and, however the gentleman may alarm 
himself with the disorganizing effects of French principles, I cannot 
think our ignorant blacks have felt much of their baneful influence. I 
dare say more than one half of them never heard of the French Rev- 
olution. 

But as great as he regards the danger from our slaves, the gentle- 
man's fears end not there — the standing army is not less terrible to 
him. Sir, I think a regular force, raised for a period of actual hostili- 
ties, cannot properly be called a standing army. There is a just dis- 
tinction between such a force and one raised as a permanent peace 
establishment. "Whatever would be the composition of the latter, I 
hope the former will consist of some of the best materials of the 
country. The ardent patriotism of our young men, and the liberal 
bounty in land proposed to be given, will impel them to join their coun- 
try's standard, and to fight her battles. They will not forget the citi- 
zen in the soldier, and, in obeying their officers, learn to contemn their 
government and Constitution. In our officers and soldiers we will find 
patriotism no less pure and ardent than in the private citizen ; but if 
they should be as depraved as has been represented, what have we to 
fear from 25,000 or 30,000 regulars ? Where will be the boasted 
militia of the gentleman ? Can 1,000,000 of militia be overpowered 
by 30,000 regulars ? If so, how can we rely on them against a foe in- 
vading our country ? Sir, I have no such contemptuous idea of our 
militia : their untaught bravery is sufficient to crush all foreign and in- 
ternal attempts on their country's liberties. 

But we have not yet come to the end of the chapter of dangers. 
The gentleman's imagination, so fruitful on this subject, conceives that 
our Constitution is not calculated for war, and that it cannot stand its 
rude shock. Can that be so ? If so, we must then depend upon the 
commiseration or contempt of other nations for our existence. The 
Constitution, then, it seems, has failed in an essential object : " to pro- 
vide for the common defence." No, says the gentleman, it is competent 
to a defensive, but not an offensive war. It is not necessary for me to 



1811.] SPEECH ON THE WAR. 45 

expose the fallacy of this argument. Why make the distinction in this 
case ? Will he pretend to say that this is an offensive war — a war of 
conquest ? Yes, the gentleman has ventured to make this assertion, 
and for reasons no less extraordinary than the assertion itself He 
says, our rights are violated on the ocean, and that these violations 
affect our shipping and commercial rights, to which the Canadas have 
no relation. The doctrine of retaliation has been much abused of late, 
by an unreasonable extension of its meaning. We have now to wit- 
ness a new abuse : the gentleman from Virginia has limited it down to 
a point. By his rule, if you receive a blow on the breast, you dare not 
return it on the head ; you are obliged to measure and return it on the 
precise point on which it was received. If you do not proceed with 
this mathematical accuracy, it ceases to be self-defence — it becomes an 
unprovoked attack. 

In speaking of Canada, the gentleman from Virginia introduced the 
name of Montgomery with much feeling and interest. Sir, there is 
danger in that name to the gentleman's argument. It is sacred to hero- 
ism ! it is indignant of submission ! It calls our memory back to the 
time of our Revolution — to the Congress of 1774 and 1715. Suppose a 
member of that day had rose and urged all the arguments which we 
have heard on this occasion — had told that Congress your contest is 
about the right of laying a tax — that the attempt on Canada had noth- 
ing to do with it — that the war would be expensive — that danger and 
devastation would overspread our country — and that the power of 
Great Britain was irresistible. With what sentiment, think you, would 
such doctrines have been then received ? Happy for us, they had no 
force at that period of our country's glory. Had such been acted on, 
this hall would never have witnessed a great people convened to de- 
liberate for the general good ; a mighty empire, with prouder prospects 
than any nation the sun ever shone on, would not have risen in the 
West. No ! we would have been base, subjected colonies, governed 
by that imperious rod which Britain holds over her distant provinces. 

The gentleman attributes the preparation for war to everything but 
its true cause. He endeavors to find it in the probable rise in the price 
of hemp. He represents the people of the Western States as willing 
to plunge our country into war for such interested and base motives. 
I will not reason this point. I see the cause of their ardor, not in 
such unworthy motives, but in their known patriotism and disinter- 
estedness. 



46 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1811. 

No less mercenary is the reason which he attributes to the Southern 
States. He says that the Non-importation Act has reduced cotton to 
nothing, which has produced a feverish impatience. Sir, I acknowledge 
the cotton of our plantations is worth but little, but not for the cause 
assigned by the gentleman. The people of that section do not reason 
as he does ; they do not attribute it to the efforts of their government 
to maintain the peace and independence of their country : they see in 
the low price of their produce the hand of foreign injustice ; they know 
well, without the market of the Continent, the deep and steady current 
of our supply will glut that of Great Britain. They are not prepared 
for the colonial state to which again that power is endeavoring to re- 
duce us. The manly spirit of that section will not submit to be regula- 
ted by any foreign power. 

The love of France and the hatred of England have also been assigned 
as the cause of the present measure. France has not done us justice, 
says the gentleman from Virginia, and how can we, without partiality, 
resist the aggressions of England ? I know, Sir, we have still cause of 
complaint against France, but it is of a different character from that 
against England. She professes now to respect our rights ; and there 
cannot be a reasonable doubt but that the most objectionable parts of 
her decrees, as far as they respect us, are repealed. We have already 
formally acknowledged this to be a fact. But I protest against the 
principle from which his conclusion is drawn. It is a novel doctrine, 
and nowhere avowed out of this house, that you cannot select your an- 
tagonist without being guilty of partiality. Sir, when two invade your 
rights, you may resist both, or either, at your pleasure. The selection 
is regulated by prudence, and not by right. The stale imputation of 
partiality for France is better calculated for the columns of a newspaper 
than for the walls of this house. 

The gentleman from Virginia is at a loss to account for what lie calls 
our hatred to England. He asks, how can we hate the country of 
Locke, of Newton, Hampden, and Chatham; a country having the same 
language and customs with ourselves, and descended from a common 
ancestry ? Sir, the laws of human affections are steady and uniform. 
If we have so much to attach us to that country, powerful indeed must 
be the cause which has overpowered it. Yes, there is a cause strong 
enough ; not that occult, courtly affection, which he has supposed to be 
entertained for France, but continued and unprovoked insult and injury: 
a cause so manifest that he had to exert much ingenuity to overlook it. 



1811.] SPEECH ON THE WAR. 47 

But the gentleman, in his eager admiration of England, has not been 
sufficiently guarded in his argument. Has he reflected on the cause of 
that admiration \ Has he examined the reasons for our high regard for 
her Chatham ? It is his ardent patriotism — his heroic courage, which 
could not brook the least insult or injury offered to his country, but 
thought that her interest and her honor ought to be vindicated, be the 
hazard and expense what they might. I hope, when we are called on 
to admire, we shall also be asked to imitate. I hope the gentleman 
does not wish a monopoly of those great virtues for England. 

The balance of power has also been introduced as an argument for 
submission. England is said to be a barrier against the military des- 
potism of France. There is, Sir, one great error in our legislation ; we 
are ready, it would seem from this argument, to watch over the interests 
of foreign nations, while we grossly neglect our own immediate concerns. 
This argument, drawn from the balance of power, is well calculated 
for the British Parliament, but is not at all suited to the American 
Congress. Tell the former that they have to contend with a mighty 
power, and if they persist in injury and insult to the American people, they 
will compel them to throw their weight into the scale of their enemy. 
Paint the danger to them, and if they will desist from injuring us, I an- 
swer for it, we will not disturb the balance of power. But it is absurd 
for us to talk about it, while they, by their conduct, smile with con- 
tempt at what they regard as our simple, good matured vanity. If, 
however, in the contest, it should be found that they underrate us, 
which I hope and believe, and that we can affect the balance of power, 
it will not be difficult for us to obtain such terms as our rights demand. 

I, Sir, will now conclude, by adverting to an argument of the gentle- 
man used in debate on a preceding day. He asked, why not declare 
war immediately ? The answer is obvious — because we are not yet 
prepared. But, says the gentleman, such language as is held here 
will provoke Great Britain to commence hostilities. I have no such 
fears. She knows well that such a course would unite all parties here 
— a thing which, above all others, she most dreads. Besides, such has 
been our past conduct, that she will still calculate on our patience and 
submission till war is actually commenced. 

If any of Mr. Calhoun's friends had previously been 
inclined to doubt his ability to take and maintain a 
position among the ablest members in the House, this 



48 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1811. 

speech must have served to dissipate all their fears. It 
was a favorite maxim of Napoleon's, that " it is the 
first step which is difficult." This is as true in politics 
as in war, — in the life of a statesman as in the career 
of a warrior. Mr. Calhoun had now taken the first 
step, and the pathway to distinction lay open and plain 
before him : it was not, indeed, free from difficulties 
and embarrassments — for there are always thorns to 
tear and wound mingled with the roses that charm the 
eye with their beauty and refresh the wearied senses 
with their fragrance — but in the distance it presented 
the bright promise of an abundant harvest of fame. 

Among his associates in the House of Represen- 
tatives were many of the ablest men in the nation, 
who had either already become distinguished, or were 
advancing with rapid strides on the road to greatness. 
" In all the Congresses with which I have had any ac- 
quaintance since my entry into the service of the 
federal government," said Mr. Clay, — " in none, in my 
opinion, has been assembled such a galaxy of eminent 
and able men as were those Congresses which declared 
the war, and which immediately followed the peace.'"*' 
First and foremost among them was the Speaker him- 
self — Henry Clay, of Kentucky — the eloquent and im- 
passioned orator ; and beside him there were James 
Fisk of Vermont, the honest and independent; Peter 
B. Porter, of New York, the chivalrous and high- 
minded ; John Randolph, the talented and eccentric ; 
Langdon Cheves and William Lowndes, the eminent 
and able colleagues of Mr. Calhoun ; Felix Grundy, 
of Tennessee, the skilful debater ; Nathaniel Macon, 

* Remarks of Mr. Clay in the U. S. Senate, April 1, 1850. 



1811.] STANDING IN CONGRESS. 49 

the independent and fearless, but often impracticable 
politician; Josiah Quincy of Massachusetts, the ac- 
complished but vindictive partisan; and Timothy 
Pitkin of Connecticut, the industrious and conscien- 
tious. 

The maiden effort of Mr. Calhoun was not merely 
well received. Expressions of approbation were heard 
on every side, and it was as generally commended for 
its ability and eloquence, as for the patriotism of its 
sentiments. In allusion to this speech, and to the 
arguments offered in reply to Mr. Randolph, the ex- 
perienced editor of the Richmond Enquirer, Thomas 
Ritchie, with much justice remarked : " Mr. Calhoun 
is clear and precise in his reasoning, marching up 
directly to the object of his attack, and felling down 
the errors of his opponent with the club of Hercules ; 
not eloquent in his tropes and figures, but, like Fox, in 
the moral elevation of his sentiments ; free from per- 
sonality, yet full of those fine touches of indignation, 
which are the severest cut to a man of feeling. His 
speech, like a fine drawing, abounds in those lights and 
shades which set off each other : the cause of his coun- 
try is robed in light, while her opponents are wrapped 
in darkness. It were a contracted wish that Mr. Cal- 
houn were a Virginian ; though, after the quota she has 
furnished with opposition talent, such a wish might be 
forgiven us. We beg leave to participate, as Ameri- 
cans and friends of our country, in the honors of South 
Carolina. We hail this young Carolinian as one of the 
master-spirits who stamp their names upon the age in 
which they live." 

Having made one successful effort, Mr. Calhoun did 

3 



50 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1812. 

not sit down in inglorious ease to repose on the laurels 
he had gained, but with increased ardor and eagerness 
pressed forward in the race. Like the young eaglet 
which had for the first time ventured into the clouds 
and returned in safety to its eyry, he purposed to take 
a still higher and prouder flight. Whatever of appli- 
cation and industry were necessary to ensure his suc- 
cess in the career upon which he had fairly embarked, 
were not lacking. Action — which the great master of 
oratory declared to be so essential to the successful 
orator — was in and a part of his character, and genius, 
like the spear of Ithuriel, had imparted to it an almost 
unearthly fire. 

Republican principles were firmly rooted in the 
mind of Mr. Calhoun, — too firmly to be swerved from ' 
maintaining them, as he thought, in their pristine vigor 
and purity, by any considerations of mere party expe- 
diency. Nature never designed him for a partisan. 
He professed to belong to the Republican party, and 
supported its measures, where he did not regard them 
as conflicting with its principles, in all honesty and 
faith. But there was nothing grovelling in his dispo- 
sition. He could not be fettered by political ties ; they 
were regarded, perhaps, when his judgment and his 
conscience approved what they required, but when 
more was demanded they were powerless as the withes 
of the Philistines against the lusty strength of Samson. 

At an early period in his first session he acquired a 
highly honorable reputation for his fearless and inde- 
pendent conduct ; and this he never lost even amid 
the many trying scenes of his subsequent life. 

To the administration of Mr. Madison he in the 



1812.] THE RESTRICTIVE SYSTEM. 51 

main yielded a cordial and hearty support, not because 
he was attracted or awed by the influence of power, 
or seduced by the blandishments of executive favor 
and patronage, but simply for the reason that all its 
more prominent measures accorded with his own con- 
victions and opinions with respect to the true policy 
of the country. Encouraged by the animating elo- 
quence of Mr. Calhoun, — of Mr. Clay, Mr. Porter, and 
Mr. Grundy, — a bolder and more defiant tone was as- 
sumed by the Republican members of Congress at the 
session of 1811-12. Bills providing for the enlistment 
of twenty thousand men in the regular army ; for re- 
pairing and equipping the frigates in ordinary and 
building new vessels ; authorizing the President to ac- 
cept the services of fifty thousand volunteers ; and re- 
quiring the executives of the several states and terri- 
tories to hold their respective quotas of one hundred 
thousand men fully organized, armed and equipped, in 
readiness to march at a moment's warning, were duly 
passed with the approbation and vote of Mr. Calhoun ; 
and in June, 1812, with the whole delegation from 
South Carolina, he supported the declaration of war. 

In regard to the non-importation and embargo acts, 
or what is generally known as the restrictive system, 
Mr. Calhoun differed from the administration and from 
a great majority of his political friends. He opposed 
with great earnestness the continuance of the system, 
and in a speech distinguished by all the traits peculiar 
to his style of oratory, set forth the grounds of his 
opposition with great clearness and cogency. " The 
restrictive system," he said, " as a mode of resistance, 
or as a means of obtaining redress, has never been a 



52 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1813. 

favorite one with me. I wish not to censure the mo- 
tives which dictated it, or attribute weakness to those 
who first resorted to it for a restoration of our rights. 
But, Sir, I object to the restrictive system because it 
does not suit the genius of the people, or that of our 
government, or the geographical character of our 
country. We are a people essentially active ; I may 
say we are preeminently so. No passive system can 
suit such a people ; in action superior to all others, in 
patient endurance inferior to none. Nor does it suit 
the genius of our government. Our government is 
founded on freedom, and hates coercion. To make 
the restrictive system effective, requires the most arbi- 
trary laws. England, with the severest penal statutes 
has not been able to exclude prohibited articles ; and 
Napoleon, with all his power and vigilance, was obliged 
to resort to the most barbarous laws to enforce his 
Continental system. * * * * But there are other ob- 
jections to the system. It renders government odious. 
The farmer inquires why he gets no more for his pro- 
duce, and he is told it is owing to the embargo, or com- 
mercial restrictions. In this he sees only the hand of 
his own government, and not the acts of violence and 
injustice which this system is intended to counteract. 
His censures fall on the government. This is an un- 
happy state of the public mind, and even, I might say, 
in a government resting essentially on public opinion, 
a dangerous one. In war it is different. Its priva- 
tion, it is true, may be equal or greater ; but the public 
mind, under the strong impulses of that state of things, 
becomes steeled against sufferings. The difference is 
almost infinite between the passive and active state of 



1813.] HIS SPEECH. 53 

the mind. Tie down a hero, and he feels the puncture 
of a pin : throw him into battle, and he is almost in- 
sensible to vital gashes. So in war. Impelled alter- 
nately by hope and fear, stimulated by revenge, de- 
pressed by shame, or elevated by victory, the people 
become invincible. No privation can shake their for- 
titude ; no calamity break their spirit. Even when 
equally successful, the contrast between the two sys- 
tems is striking. War and restriction may leave the 
country equally exhausted ; but the latter not only 
leaves you poor, but, even when successful, dispirited, 
divided, discontented, with diminished patriotism, and 
the morals of a considerable portion of your people 
corrupted. Not so in war. In that state, the common 
danger unites all, strengthens the bonds of society, and 
feeds the flame of patriotism. The national character 
mounts to energy. In exchange for the expenses and 
privations of war, you obtain military and naval skill, 
and a more perfect organization of such parts of your 
administration as are connected with the science of 
national defence. Sir, are these advantages to be 
counted as trifles in the present state of the world ? 
Can they be measured by moneyed valuation ? I 
would prefer a single victory over the enemy, by sea 
or land, to all the good we shall ever derive from the 
continuation of the Non-importation Act. I know not 
that a victory would produce an equal pressure on the 
enemy ; but I am certain of what is of greater conse- 
quence, it would be accompanied by more salutary 
effects to ourselves. The memory of Saratoga, Prince- 
ton, and Eutaw is immortal. It is there you will find 
the country's boast and pride — the inexhaustible source 



54 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1813. 

of great and heroic sentiments. But what will history 
say of restriction ? What examples worthy of imita- 
tion will it furnish to posterity ? What pride, what 
pleasure, will our children find in the events of such 
times? Let me not be considered romantic. This 
nation ought to be taught to rely on its courage, its 
fortitude, its skill and virtue, for protection. These 
are the only safeguards in the hour of danger. Man 
was endued with these "great qualities for his defence. 
There is nothing about him that indicates that he is to 
conquer by endurance. He is not incrusted in a shell ; 
he is not taught to rely upon his insensibility, his pas- 
sive suffering, for defence. No, Sir ; it is on the invin- 
cible mind, on a magnanimous nature, he ought to rely. 
Here is the superiority of our kind ; it is these that 
render man the lord of the world. It is the destiny of 
his condition that nations rise above nations, as they 
are endued in a greater degree with these brilliant 
qualities." 

Mr. Calhoun was among the most prominent speak- 
ers in defending the war-bill, and the various collateral 
questions or measures which grew out of it. A few 
months' experience enabled him to cope successfully 
with the most experienced debaters ; and on the retire- 
ment of Mr. Porter from Congress, " to partake per- 
sonally, not only in the pleasures, if any there should 
be, but in all the dangers of the revelry," — which that 
gentleman had pledged himself to do if war was declar- 
ed, — the post of honor, particularly so in this crisis, at 
the head of the Committee of Foreign Relations, was 
filled by the former. In this capacity he reported the 
bill declaring war against Great Britain, and urged its 



1811-15.] DISINTERESTEDNESS. 55 

prompt passage with all the zeal and ability that he 
possessed. 

At the second session of the twelfth Congress, the 
Speaker was much embarrassed in the appointment of 
the committees, by the fact that there were so many 
prominent and able men from the state of South Caro- 
lina. As Mr. Calhoun was the youngest representative 
from his state, he consented, with his usual disinterest- 
deness, to be placed the second on the committee of 
which he had officiated as chairman, at the previous 
session. John Smiiie, "an old and highly-respectable 
member from Pennsylvania, was placed at the head of 
the committee. At its first meeting the chairman, with- 
out previously intimating his intention, moved that Mr. 
Calhoun should be elected chairman. He objected, and 
insisted that Mr. Smiiie should act as chairman, and 
declared his perfect willingness to serve under him ; but 
he was, notwithstanding, unanimously elected, and the 
strongest proof that could be given of the highly satis- 
factory manner in which he had previously discharged 
his duty was thus afforded. In this conviction, and as 
illustrative of the same disinterested character, when 
the Speaker's chair became vacant by the appointment 
of Mr. Clay as one of the commissioners to negotiate 
for peace, Mr. Calhoun was solicited by many of the 
most influential members of the party to become a can- 
didate for it; but he peremptorily refused to oppose 
his distinguished colleague, Mr. Cheves, who was 
elected. 

" At an early period of the same session, a question 
out of the ordinary course, and which excited much 
interest at the time, became the subject of discussion, 



56 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1811-15. 

that of the merchants' bonds. The Non-importation 
Act (one of the restrictive measures) was in force when 
the war was declared. Under its operation, a large 
amount of capital had been accumulated abroad, and 
especially in England, the proceeds of exports that could 
not be returned in consequence of the prohibition of 
imports. The owners, when they saw war was inevi- 
table, became alarmed, and gave orders for the return of 
their property. It came back, for the most part, in 
merchandise, which was subject to forfeiture under the 
act. The owners petitioned for the remission of the 
forfeitures, and permission to enter the goods on paying 
the war duties. The Secretary of the Treasury, on the 
other hand, proposed to remit the forfeiture on condi- 
tion that the amount of the value of the goods should 
be loaned to the government by the owners. Mr. 
Cheves, who was at the head of the Committee of 
Ways and Means, reported in favor of the petition, and 
supported his report by an able speech. The question 
had assumed much of a party character, but it did not 
deter Mr. Calhoun from an independent exercise of his 
judgment. He believed that the act never contempla- 
ted a case of the kind, and that to enforce, under such 
circumstances, a forfeiture amounting to millions, which 
would embrace a large class of citizens, would be against 
the spirit of the criminal code of a free and enlightened 
people. But waiving these more general views, he 
thought the only alternative was to remit the forfeiture, 
as prayed for by the owners, or to enforce it according 
to the provisions of the act : that, if the importation 
was such a violation as justly and properly incurred the 
forfeiture, then the act ought to be enforced ; but if not, 



1811-15.] OPPOSES RENEWAL OF EMBARGO. 57 

the forfeiture ought to be remitted ; and that the gov- 
ernment had no right, and if it had, it was unbecoming 
its dignity to convert a penal act into the means of 
making a forced loan. Thus thinking, he seconded the 
effort of his distinguished colleague, and enforced his 
views in a very able speech. The result was, that the 
forfeiture was remitted, and the goods admitted on pay- 
ing duties in conformity to the course recommended by 
the committee. 

" There was another case in which, at this period, he 
evinced his firmness and independence. The adminis- 
tration still adhered to the restrictive policy, and even 
after the war was declared the President recommended 
the renewal of the Embargo. Mr. Calhoun, as has been 
shown, opposed, on principle, the whole system as a 
substitute for war, and he was still more opposed to it 
as an auxiliary to it. He held it, in that light, not only 
as inefficient and delusive, but as calculated to impair 
the means of the country, and to divert a greater share 
of its capital and industry to manufactures than could 
be, on the return of peace, sustained by the government 
on any sound principles of justice or policy. He 
thought war itself, without restrictions, would give so 
great a stimulus, that no small embarrassment and loss 
would result on its termination, in despite of all that 
could be done for them, while, at the same time, he ex- 
pressed his willingness, when peace came, to protect 
the establishments that might grow up during its con- 
tinuance, as far as it could be fairly done. 

" The Embargo failed on the first recommendation ; 

but, at the next session, being recommended again, it 

succeeded. Mr. Calhoun, at the earnest entreaties of 

3 # 



58 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1811-15. 

friends, and to prevent division in the party when their 
union was so necessary to the success of the war, gave 
it a reluctant vote. 

" But the time was approaching when an opportunity 
would be afforded him to carry out successfully his 
views in reference to the restrictive system, and that 
with the concurrence of the party. The disasters of 
Bonaparte in the Russian campaign, his consequent fall 
and dethronement in the early part of 1814, and the 
triumph of Great Britain, after one of the longest, and, 
altogether, the most remarkable contests on record, 
offered that opportunity, which he promptly seized. 
This great event, which terminated the war in Europe, 
left Great Britain, flushed with victory, in full possession 
of all the vast resources, in men, money, and materials, 
by which she had brought that mighty conflict to a suc- 
cessful termination, to be turned against us. It was a 
fearful state of things ; but, as fearful as it was of itself, 
it was made doubly so by the internal condition of the 
country, and the course of the opposition. Blinded by 
party zeal, they beheld with joy or indifference what 
was calculated to appal the patriotic. Forgetting the 
country, and intent only on a party triumph, they seized 
the opportunity to embarrass the government. Their 
great effort was made against the Loan Bill — a measure 
necessary to carry on the war. Instead of supporting 
it, they denounced the war itself as unjust and inexpe- 
dient ; and they proclaimed its further prosecution, in 
so unequal a contest, as hopeless, now that the whole 
power of the British Empire would be brought to bear 
against us. Mr. Calhoun replied in a manner highly 
characteristic of the man, undaunted, able, and eloquent. 



1811-15.] SPEECH ON THE LOAN BILL. 59 

None can read this speech, even at this distance of time, 
without kindling under that elevated tone of feeling, 
which wisdom, emanating from a spirit lofty and self- 
possessed under the most trying circumstances, only 
can inspire. In order to show the justice and expe- 
diency of the war, he took an historical view of the 
maritime usurpations of Great Britain, from the cele- 
brated order in council of 1756, to the time of the dis- 
cussion, and demonstrated that her aggressions were 
not accidental, or dependent on peculiar circumstances, 
but were the result of a fixed system of policy, intended 
to establish her supremacy on the ocean. After giving 
a luminous view of the origin and character of the 
wrongs we had suffered from her, he clearly showed the 
flimsiness of the pretext by which she sought to justify 
her conduct, as well as that of the opposition to excuse 
her, and dwelt upon the folly of hoping to obtain re- 
dress by sheathing the sword or throwing ourselves on 
her justice. The following extract, taken from the con- 
clusion, will afford an example of his lofty and animat- 
ing eloquence: 

" ' This country is left alone to support the rights of 
neutrals. Perilous is the condition, and arduous the 
task. We are not intimidated. We stand opposed to 
British usurpation, and, by our spirit and efforts, have 
done all in our power to save the last vestiges of neutral 
rights. Yes, our embargoes, non-intercourse, non-im- 
portation, and, finally, war, are all manly exertions to 
preserve the rights of this and other nations from the 
deadly grasp of British maritime policy. But (say our 
opponents) these efforts are lost, and our condition hope- 
less. If so, it only remains for us to assume the garb 






60 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1811-15. 

of our condition. We must submit, humbly submit, 
crave pardon, and hug our chains. It is not wise to 
provoke where we cannot resist. But first let us be 
well assured of the hopelessness of our state before we 
sink into submission. On what do our opponents rest 
their despondent and slavish belief? On the recent 
events in Europe ? I admit they are great, and well 
calculated to impose on the imagination. Our enemy 
never presented a more imposing exterior. His fortune 
is at the flood. But I am admonished by universal ex- 
perience, that such prosperity is the most precarious of 
human conditions. From the flood the tide dates its 
ebb. From the meridian the sun commences its de- 
cline. Depend upon it, there is more of sound philoso- 
phy than of fiction in the fickleness which poets attribute 
to fortune. Prosperity has its weakness, adversity its 
strength. In many respects our enemy has lost by those 
very changes which seem so very much in his favor. 
He can no more claim to be struggling for existence; 
no more to be fighting the battles of the world in defence 
of the liberties of mankind. The magic cry of ' French 
influence' is lost. In this very hall we are not stran- 
gers to that sound. Here, even here, the cry of ' French 
influence/ that baseless fiction, that phantom of faction 
now banished, often resounded. I rejoice that the spell 
is broken by which it was attempted to bind the spirit 
of this youthful nation. The minority can no longer 
act under cover, but must come out and defend their 
opposition on its own intrinsic merits. Our example 
can scarcely fail to produce its effects on other nations 
interested in the maintenance of maritime rights. But 
if, unfortunately, we should be left alone to maintain 



1811-15.] SPEECH ON THE LOAN BILL. 61 

the contest, and if, which may God forbid, necessity 
should compel us to yield for the present, yet our gener- 
ous efforts will not have been lost. A mode of thinking 
and a tone of sentiment have gone abroad which must 
stimulate to future and more successful struggles. 
What could not be effected with eight millions of people 
will be done with twenty. The great cause Will never 
be yielded — no, never, never! Sir, I hear the future 
audibly announced in the past — in the splendid vic- 
tories over the Guerriere, Java, and Macedonian. We, 
and all nations, bv these victories, are taught a lesson 
never to be forgotten. Opinion is power. The charm 
of British naval invincibility is gone.' 

" Such was the animated strain by which Mr. Cal- 
houn roused the spirit of the government and country 
under a complication of adverse circumstances calcu- 
lated to overwhelm the feeble and appal the stoutest. 
Never faltering, never doubting, never despairing of 
the Republic, he was at once the hope of the party and 
the beacon light to the country. 

" But he did not limit his efforts to repelling the at- 
tacks of the opposition, and animating the hopes of the 
government and country. He saw that the very 
events which exposed us to so much danger, made a 
mightv change in the political and commercial rela- 
tions of Continental Europe, which had been so long 
closed against foreign commerce, in consequence of 
the long war that grew out of the French Revolution, 
and of those hostile orders and decrees of the two 
great belligerents, which had for many years almost 
annihilated all lawful commerce between the Continent 
of Europe and the rest of the world. The events that 



62 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1811-15. 

dethroned Bonaparte put an end to that state of things, 
and left all the powers of Europe free to resume their 
former commercial pursuits. He saw in all this that 
the time had come to free the government entirely 
from the shackles of the restrictive system, to which 
he had been so long opposed ; and he, accordingly, fol- 
lowed up his speech by a bill to repeal the Embargo 
and the A T on-importation Act. He rested their repeal 
on the ground that they were a portion of the restric- 
tive policy, and showed that the ground on which it 
had been heretofore sustained was, that it was a pacific 
policy, growing out of the extraordinary state of the 
world at the time it was adopted, and. of course, de- 
pendent on the continuance of that state. ' It was a 
time,' he said, ' when every power on the Continent 
was arrayed against Great Britain, under the over- 
whelming influence of Bonaparte, and no country but 
ours interested in maintaining neutral rights. The fact 
of all the Continental ports being closed against her, 
gave to our restrictive measures an efficacy which they 
no longer had, now that they were open to her.' He 
admitted that the system had been continued too long, 
and been too far extended, and that he was opposed to 
it as a substitute for war. but contended that there 
would be no inconsistency on the part of the govern- 
ment in abandoning a policy founded on a state of 
things which no longer existed. ' But now,' said he, 
1 the Continental powers are neutrals, as between 
us and Great Britain. We are contending for the 
freedom of trade, and ought to use every exertion to 
attach to our cause Russia, Sweden, Holland, Den- 
mark, and all other nations which have an interest in 



1811-15.] SPEECH ON THE LOAN BILL. 63 

the freedom of the seas. The maritime rights as- 
sumed by Great Britain infringe on the rights of all 
neutral powers, and if we should now open our ports 
and trade to the nations of the Continent, it would in- 
volve Great Britain in a very awkward and perplexing 
dilemma. She must either permit us to enjoy a very 
lucrative commerce with them, or by attempting to ex- 
clude them from our ports by her system of paper 
blockades she would force them to espouse our cause. 
The option which would thus be tendered her would 
so embarrass her as to produce a stronger desire for 
peace than ten years' continuance of the present sys- 
tem, imperative as it is now rendered by a change of 
circumstances."* 

No one can now look back to that stirring period at 
which these words were uttered, uninfluenced by the 
passions and prejudices of the day, which it is but nat- 
ural to suppose may have in some degree warped the 
best and wisest judgments, without being struck with 
the almost prophetic character of the remarks of Mr. 
Calhoun. His vision seemed to o'ertop passing events, 
and to take in at a single glance the future with all the 
valuable lessons, in the fulfilment as in the disappoint- 
ment of hopes and expectations, which it had in store 

* Memoir of Mr. Calhoun, 1843. 



CHAPTER IV. 

Reelection of Mr. Calhoun— Results of the War — The Commercial 
Treaty — Course of Mr. Calhoun — His Speech — The United States 
Bank — Mr. Dallas' Bill — Opposition of Mr. Calhoun to this Measure 
— Its Defeat — Chairman of the Committee on the Currency — Report 
of a Bank Bill — Speech — Passage of the Bill. 

So well pleased were the constituents of Mr. Calhoun 
with the manner in which he had discharged his duties 
as a member of Congress, during that important junc- 
ture in the affairs of the national government, the main 
incidents of which have been detailed, that he was 
returned without opposition, in the fall of 1812, and 
again in 1814, to the thirteenth and fourteenth Con- 
gresses. 

Until the close of the war he remained the firm and 
steadfast advocate of decisive measures, yet when a 
favorable peace had been concluded he hailed it as the 
harbinger of good to the country, and especially as it 
was the signal of her release from the thraldom of 
foreign influence. The results of the contest were 
manifold, and in several important respects they af- 
fected the political action and conduct of Mr. Calhoun. 
If strict chronological order were essential to be ob- 
served, the subject of the charter of the United States 
Bank would be first in time, but as that is unneces- 
sary, the Commercial Treaty with Great Britain and 



1815-16.] THE COMMERCIAL TREATY. 65 

the debate which took place thereon in Congress, seem 
naturally to follow the conclusion of the war. 

Immediately after the ratification of the treaty was 
made public, and the appearance of the proclamation 
of the President, a bill was introduced into the House 
of Representatives by Mr. Forsyth, from the Com- 
mittee on Foreign Relations, providing for carrying the 
treaty into effect, or, in other words, declaring that the 
laws in regard to the imposition and collection of 
duties, not consistent with the provisions of the treaty 
or convention, were repealed. A long and interesting 
debate arose upon the merits of this bill, in the course 
of which Mr. Calhoun delivered an able and argu- 
mentative speech, which is thus reported in the Na- 
tional Intelligencer : — 

Mr. Calhoun observed, that the votes on this hill had been ordered to 
be recorded, and that the house would see, in his peculiar situation, a 
sufficient apology for his offering his reasons for the rejection of the 
bill. He had no disposition to speak on this bill, as he felt contented to 
let it take that course, which, in the opinion of the majority, it ought, till 
the members were called on by the order of the house to record their 

votes. 

The question presented for consideration is perfectly simple, and 
easily understood ; is this bill necessary to give validity to the late 
treaty with Great Britain ? It appeared to him, that this question is 
susceptible of a decision, without considering whether a treaty can in 
any case set aside a law; or, to be more particular, whether the treaty 
which this bill purposes to carry into effect, does repeal the discriminat- 
ing duties. The house will remember that a law was passed at the close 
of the last session, conditionally repealing those duties. That act pro- 
posed to repeal them in relation to any nation, which would on its part 
agree to repeal similar duties as to this country. On the contingency 
happening, the law became positive. It has happened, and has been 
announced to the country, that England has agreed to repeal. The 
President, in proclaiming the treaty, has notified the fact to the house 



66 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1815-16. 

and country. Why then propose to do that by this bill, which has al- 
ready been done by a previous act ? He knew it had been said in con- 
versation, that the provisions of the act were not as broad as the treaty. 
It did not strike him so. They appeared to him to be commensurate. 
He would also reason from the appearance of this house, that they were 
not very deeply impressed with the necessity of this bill. He never, on 
any important occasion, saw it so indifferent. Y\ nence could this arise % 
From the want of importance ? If, indeed, the existence of the treaty 
depended on the passage of this bill, nothing scarcely could be more 
interesting. It would be calculated to excite strong feelings. We all 
know how the country was agitated when Jay's treaty was before this 
house. The question was on an appropriation to carry it into effect ; 
a power acknowledged by all to belong to the house ; and on the exer- 
cise of which, the existence of the treaty was felt to depend. The feel- 
ings manifested corresponded with this conviction. Not so on this oc- 
casion. Farther, the treaty has already assumed the form of law. It 
is so proclaimed to the community ; the words of the proclamation are 
not material; it speaks for itself; and if it means anything, it announces 
the treaty as a rule of public conduct, as a law exacting the obedience 
of the people. Were he of the opposite side, if he indeed believed this 
treaty to be a dead letter till it received the sanction of Congress, he 
would lay the bill on the table, and move an inquiry into the fact, why 
the treaty has been proclaimed as a law before it had received the 
proper sanction. It is true, the Executive has transmitted a copy of 
the treaty to the house ; but has he sent the negotiation ? Has he given 
any light to judge why it should receive the sanction of this body? 
Do gentlemen mean to say that information is not needed ; that though 
we have the right to pass laws to give validity to treaties, yet we are 
bound by a moral obligation to pass such laws ? To talk of the right of 
this house to sanction treaties, and at the same time to assert that it is 
under a moral obligation not to withhold that sanction, is a solecism. 
No sound mind that understands the terms can possibly assent to it. 
He would caution the house, while it was extending its powers to cases 
which he believed did not belong to it, to take care lest it should lose 
its substantial and undoubted power. He would put it on its guard 
against the dangerous doctrine, that it can in any case become a mere 
registering body. Another fact, in regard to this treaty. It does not 
stipulate that a law should pass to repeal the duties proposed to be re- 
pealed by this bill, which would be its proper form, if in the opinion of 



1815-16.] SPEECH ON THE TREATY-MAKING POWER. 



67 



the negotiators a law was necessary ; but it stipulates in positive terms 
for their repeal without consulting or regarding us. Mr. C. here con- 
cluded this part of the discussion, by stating that it appeared to him, 
from the whole complexion of the case, that the bill before the house 
was mere form and not supposed to be necessary to the validity of the 
treaty. It would be proper, however, he observed, to reply to the 
arguments which have been urged on the general nature of the treaty- 
making power, and as it was a subject of great importance, he solicited 
the attentive hearing of the house. It is not denied, he believed, that 
the President with the concurrence of two thirds of the Senate have a 
right to make commercial treaties ; it is not asserted that this treaty is 
couched in such general terms as to require a law to carry the details 
into execution. Why then is this bill necessary ? Because, say gentle- 
men, that the treaty of itself, without the aid of this bill, cannot exempt 
British tonnage and goods imported in their bottoms, from the operation 
of the law, laying additional duties on foreign tonnage and goods im- 
ported in foreign vessels ; or, giving the question a more general form, 
because a treaty cannot annul a law. The gentleman from Virginia, 
(Mr. Barbour,) who argued this point very distinctly, though not satis- 
factorily, took as his general position, that to repeal a law is a legislative 
act, and can only be done by law ; that in the distribution of the legis- 
lative and treaty -making power, the right to repeal a law fell exclusively 
under the former. How does this comport with the admission imme- 
diately made by him, that the treaty of peace repealed the act declaring 
war ? If he admits the fact in a single case, what becomes of his ex- 
clusive legislative right ? He indeed felt that his rule failed him, and 
in explanation assumed a position entirely new ; for he admitted, that 
when the treaty did that which was not authorized to be done by law, 
it did not require the sanction of Congress, and might in its operation 
repeal a law inconsistent with it. He said, Congress is not authorized 
to make peace ; and for this reason, a treaty of peace repeals the act 
declaring war. In this position, he understood his colleague substan- 
tially to concur. He hoped to make it appear that, in taking this 
ground, they have both yielded the point in discussion. He would 
establish, he trusted, to the satisfaction of the house, that the treaty- 
making power, when it was legitimately exercised, always did that 
which could not be done by law ; and that the reasons advanced to 
prove that the treaty of peace repealed the act making war, so far from 
being peculiar to that case, apply to all treaties. They do not form an 



68 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1815-16. 

exception, but in fact constitute the rule. Why then, he asked, cannot 
Congress make peace ? They have the power to declare war. All ac- 
knowledge this power. Peace and war are the opposites. They are 
the positive and negative terms of the same proposition ; and what rule 
of construction more clear, than that when a power is given to do an 
act, the power is also given to repeal it ? By what right do you repeal 
taxes, reduce your army, lay up your navy, or repeal any law, but by 
the force of this plain rule of construction ? Why cannot Congress, then, 
repeal the act declaring war ? He acknowledged with the gentleman, 
they cannot consistently with reason. The solution of this question ex- 
plained the whole difficulty. The reason is plain : one power may make 
war; it requires two to make peace. It is a state of mutual amity 
succeeding mutual hostility ; it is a state that cannot be created but with 
the consent of both parties. It required a contract or a treaty between 
the nations at war. Is this peculiar to a treaty of peace ? No, it is 
common to all treaties. It arises out of their nature, and not from any 
accidental circumstance attaching itself to a particular class. It is no 
more or less than that Congress cannot make a contract with a foreign 
nation. Let us apply it to a treaty of commerce, to this very case. 
Can Congress do what this treaty has done ? It has repealed the dis- 
criminating duties between this country and England. Either could 
by law repeal its own. But by law they could go no farther ; and for 
the same reason that peace cannot be made by law. Whenever, then, 
an ordinary subject of legislation can only be regulated by contract, it 
passes from the sphere of the ordinary power of making laws, and at- 
taches itself to that of making treaties, wherever it is lodged. All ac- 
knowledge the truth of this conclusion, where the subject on which the 
treaty operates is not expressly given to Congress. But in other cases, 
they consider the two powers as concurrent ; and conclude from the 
nature of such powers that such treaties must be confirmed by law. 
Will they acknowledge the opposite, that laws on such subjects must be 
confirmed by treaties ? And if, as they state, a law can repeal a treaty 
when concurrent, why not a treaty a law ? Into such absurdities do 
false doctrines lead. The truth is, the legislative and treaty-making 
power ar* 3 never in the strict sense concurrent. They both may have 
the same subject, as in this case commerce ; but they discharge functions 
as different in relation to it in their nature, as their subject is alike. 
When we speak of concurrent powers, we mean when both can do the 
same thing ; but he contended, that when the two powers under discus- 



1815-16.] SPEECH ON THE TREATY-MAKING POWER. 69 

sion were confined to their proper sphere, not only the law could not do 
what could be done by treaty, but the reverse was true ; that is, they 
never are nor can be concurrent powers. It is only when we reason on 
this subject that we mistake ; in all other cases the common sense of 
the house and country decide correctly. It is proposed to establish 
some regulation of commerce ; we immediately inquire, does it depend 
on our will ; can we make the desired regulation without the concur- 
rence of any foreign power ; if so, it belongs to Congress, and any one 
would feel it to be absurd to attempt to effect it by treaty. On the 
contrary, does it require the consent of a foreign power ? Is it proposed 
to grant a favor for a favor, to repeal discriminating duties on both 
sides ? It is equally felt to belong to the treaty power ; and he would 
be thought insane who would propose to abolish the discriminating 
duties in any case, by an act of the American Congress. It is calculated, 
he felt, almost to insult the good sense of the house, to dwell on a point 
apparently so clear. What then would he infer from what had been 
advanced ? That according to the argument of gentlemen, treaties, 
producing a state of things inconsistent with the provisions of an exist- 
ing law, annul such provisions. But as he did not agree with them in 
the view which they took, he would here present his own for considera- 
tion. Why then has a treaty the force which he attributes to it ? Be- 
cause it is an act in its own nature paramount to laws made by the com- 
mon legislative powers of the country. It is in fact a law, and some- 
thing more, a law established by contract between independent nations. 
To analogize it to private life, law has the same relations to treaty, as 
the resolution taken by an individual to his contract. An individual 
may make the most deliberate promise — he may swear it in the most 
solemn form, that he would not sell his house or any other property he 
may have ; yet, if he would afterwards sell, the sale would be valid in 
law ; he would not be admitted in a court of justice to plead his oath 
against his contract. Take a case of government in its most simple form, 
where it was purely despotic, that is, all power lodged in the hands of 
a single individual. Would not his treaties repeal inconsistent edicts ? 
Let us now ascend from the instances cited, to illustrate the nature of 
the two powers, to the principle on which the paramount character of a 
treaty rests. A treaty always affects the interests of two ; a law only 
that of a single nation. It is an established principle of politics and 
morality, that the interest of the many is paramount to that of the 
few. In fact, it is a principle so radical, that without it no system of 






70 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1815-16. 

morality, no rational scheme of government could exist. It is for this 
reason, that contracts or that treaties, which are only the contracts of 
independent nations, or to express both in two words, that plighted 
faith, has in all ages and nations been considered so solemn. But it is 
said, in opposition to this position, that a subsequent law can repeal a 
treaty ; and to this proposition, he understood that the member from 
1ST. C. (Mr. Gaston) assented. Strictly speaking, he denied the fact. He 
knew that a law might assume the appearance of repealing a treaty ; 
but he insisted it was only in appearance, and that, in point of fact, it 
was not a repeal. "Whenever a law was proposed, declaring a treaty 
void, he considered that the house acted not as a legislative body, but 
judicially. He would illustrate his ideas. If the house is a moral 
body, that is, if it is governed by reason and virtue, which it must al- 
ways be presumed to be, the only question that ever could occupy its 
attention, whenever a treaty is to be declared void, is whether, under all 
of the circumstances of the case, the treaty is not already destroyed, by 
being violated by the nation with whom it is made, or by the existence 
of some other circumstance, if other there can be. The house determines 
this question, Is the country any longer bound by the treaty ? Has it 
not ceased to exist ? The nation passes in judgment on its own con- 
tract ; and this, from the necessity of the case, as it admits no superior 
power to which it can refer for decision. If any other consideration 
moves the house to repeal a treaty, it can be considered only in the 
light of a violation of a contract acknowledged to be binding on the 
country. A nation may, it is true, violate its contract; they may even 
do this under the form of law ; but he was not considering what might 
be done, but what might be rightfully done. It is not a question of 
power, but of right. Why are not these positions, in themselves so 
clear, universally assented to ? Gentlemen are alarmed at imaginary 
consequences. They argue not as if seeking for the meaning of the 
constitution ; but as if deliberating on the subject of making one ; not as 
members of the legislature, and acting under a constitution already 
established, but as that of a convention about to frame one. For his 
part, he had always regarded the constitution as a work of great wis- 
dom, and, being the instrument under which we existed as a body, it 
was our duty to bow to its enactments, whatever they may be, with 
submission. We ought scarcely to indulge a wish that its provisions 
should be different from what they in fact are. The consequences, how- 
ever, which appear to work with so much terror on the minds of the 



1815-16.] SPEECH ON THE TREATY-MAKING POWER. 71 

gentlemen, he considered to be without any just foundation. The treaty- 
making power has many and powerful limits ; and it will be found, when 
he came to discuss what those limits are, that it cannot destroy the con- 
stitution, our personal liberty, involve us, without the assent of this 
house, in war, or grant away our money. The limits he proposed to 
this power, are not the same, it is true ; but they appear to him much 
more rational and powerful than those which were supposed to present 
effectual guards to its abuse. Let us now consider what they are. 
The grant of the power to maketreaties is couched in the most general 
terms. The words of the constitution are, that the President shall have 
power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make 
treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur. In a sub- 
sequent part of the constitution, treaties are declared to be the supreme 
law of the land. Whatever limits are imposed on those general terms 
ought to be the result of the sound construction of the instrument. There 
appeared to him but two restrictions on its exercise ; the one derived 
from the nature of our government, and the other from that of the power 
itself. Most certainly all grants of power under the constitution must 
be controlled by that instrument ; for, having their existence from it, 
they must of necessity assume that form which the constitution has im- 
posed. This is acknowledged to be true of the legislative power, and it 
is doubtless equally so of the power to make treaties. The limits of 
the former are exactly marked ; it was necessary to prevent collision 
with similar co-existing state powers. This country is divided into many 
distinct sovereignties. Exact enumeration here is necessary to prevent 
the most dangerous consequences. The enumeration of legislative 
powers in the constitution has relation then not to the treaty power, but 
to the powers of the state. 

In our relation to the rest of the world the case is reversed. Here 
the States disappear. Divided within, we present the exterior of un- 
divided sovereignty. The wisdom of the constitution appears con- 
spicuous. When enumeration was needed, there we find the powers 
enumerated and exactly defined ; when not, we do not find what would 
be vain and pernicious. Whatever then concerns our foreign relations ; 
whatever requires the consent of another nation, belongs to the treaty 
power ; can only be regulated by it ; and it is competent to regulate 
all such subjects ; provided, and here are its true limits, such regula- 
tions are not inconsistent with the constitution. If so they are void. 
No treaty can alter the fabric of our government, nor can it do that 



72 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1815-16. 

which the constitution has expressly forbade to be done ; nor can it do 
that differently which is directed to be done in a given mode, and all 
other modes prohibited. For instance, the constitution says, no money 
" shall be drawn out of the treasury but by an appropriation made by 
law." Of course no subsidy can be granted without an act of law ; and 
a treaty of alliance could not involve the country in war without the 
consent of this house. With this limitation it is easy to explain the 
case put by my colleague, who said, that according to one limitation a 
treaty might have prohibited the introduction of a certain description 
of persons before the year 1808, notwithstanding the clause in the con- 
stitution to the contrary. Mr. C. said, that he would speak plainly on 
this point ; it was the intention of the constitution that the slave trade 
should be tolerated till the time mentioned. It covered him with con- 
fusion to name it here ; he felt ashamed of such a tolerance, and took 
a large part of the disgrace, as he represented a part of the Union, by 
whose influence it might be supposed to have been introduced. 
Though Congress alone is prohibited by the words of the clause from 
inhibiting that odious traffic, yet his colleague would admit that it was 
intended to be a general prohibition on the government of the Union. 
He perceived his colleague indicated his dissent. It will be necessary 
to be more explicit. Here Mr. C. read that part of the constitution, 
and showed that the word " Congress" might be left out, in conformity 
to other parts of the constitution, without injury to the sense of the 
clause ; and he insisted the plain meaning of the parties to the con- 
stitution, was, that the trade should continue till 1808, and that a pro- 
hibition by treaty would be equally against the spirit of the instrument. 
Besides these constitutional limits, the treaty power, like all powers, 
has others derived from its object and nature. It has for its object, 
contracts with foreign nations ; as the powers of Congress have for 
their object, whatever can be done in relation to the powers delegated 
to it without the consent of foreign nations. Eacli in its proper sphere 
operates with general influence ; but when they became erratic, then 
they were portentous and dangerous. A treaty never can legitimately 
do that which can be done by law ; and the converse is also true. 
Suppose the discriminating duties repealed on both sides by law, yet 
what is effected by this treaty would not even then be done ; the 
plighted faith would be wanting. Either side might repeal its law 
without breach of contract. It appeared to him that gentlemen are 
too much influenced on this subject by the example of Great Britain. 



1815-16.] SPEECH ON THE TREATY-MAKING POWER. 73 

Instead of looking to the nature of our government, they have been 
swayed in their opinion by the practice of that government to which 
we are but too much in the habit of looking for precedents. Much 
anxiety has recently been evinced to be independent of English broad- 
cloths and muslins ; he hoped it indicated the approach of a period 
when we should also throw off the thraldom of thought. The truth is, 
but little analogy exists between this and any other government. It is 
the pride of ours to be founded in reason and equity ; all others have 
originated more or less in fraud, violence, or accident. The right to 
make treaties in England, can only be determined by the practice of 
that government; as she has no written constitution. Her practice 
may be wise in regard to her government, when it would be very im- 
prudent here. Admitting the fact to be, then, that the King refers all 
commercial treaties affecting the municipal regulations of the country 
to parliament, for its sanction, the ground would be very feeble to 
prove that to be the intention of our constitution. Strong difference 
exists between the forms of the two governments. The king is he- 
reditary ; he alone, without the participation of either house of parlia- 
ment, negotiates and makes treaties ; they have no constitution emanat- 
ing from the people, alike superior to the legislature and the king. 
Not so here. The president is elected for a short period, he is amena- 
ble to the public opinion, he is liable to be impeached for corruption, 
he cannot make treaties without the concurrence of two thirds of the 
Senate, a fact very material to be remembered, which body is in like 
manner responsible to the people at periods not very remote ; above 
all, as the laws and constitution are here perfectly distinct, and the lat- 
ter is alike superior to laws and treaties, the treaty power cannot 
change the form of government, or encroach on the liberties of the 
country, without encroaching on that instrument, which, so long as the 
people are free, will be watched with vigilance. 

In regard to his course upon the treaty question, Mr. 
Calhoun found himself opposed by nearly all of the Re- 
publican members of the House, — by those, too, whose 
opinions had the greatest weight with him. Mr. Pink- 
ney, of Maryland, the accomplished orator and advo- 
cate, took the same ground with Mr. Calhoun, but 
arrayed against them were the Clays, the Forsyths, the 

4 



74 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1815-16. 

Lowndes, and the Grundys, the great leaders of the 
Republican party. With such odds it appeared almost 
useless to contend ; but, in the direction toward which 
the convictions of his reason and judgment pointed, 
thither Mr. Calhoun turned his steps, and there his leet 
were planted. The opinions and the votes of others 
were not without their influence upon him. He did 
not act irrespective or regardless of them, but where 
they did not coincide with his own, they only led him 
to consider well the position which he had taken. 

The true question presented by the action of the 
House of Representatives upon the commercial con- 
vention, was not, as has sometimes been erroneously 
stated, similar to that which arose upon Jay's treaty, 
or the Panama mission. It was not contended by Mr. 
Calhoun and those who thought with him, that, as the 
treaty-making power was vested by the constitution in 
the President and Senate, the House of Representatives 
had no right to withhold the appropriations, or to refuse 
to pass the laws, necessary to carry a treaty into effect. 
The great principle which Madison, Gallatin, and Liv- 
ingston defended with so much earnestness, and which, 
at a later day, was maintained with equal zeal by Ben- 
ton, Van Buren, Forsyth, Hayne, and Woodbury, was 
not denied, nor called in question, except it might be 
indirectly and collaterally, during the debate on the 
commercial convention of 1815. It was rather the ap- 
plication of the principle, than the principle itself, which 
formed the subject of discussion and dispute. The 
majority of the Republican members of the House insist- 
ed that, inasmuch as the convention stipulated for the 
equalization of tonnage and duties, so as to place British 












1815-16.] madison's opinions. 75 

vessels on the same fooling with American vessels, and 
as the original law required the sanction of both 
branches of the legislative power of the government, 
it w r as not competent, therefore, for one of them, acting 
in conjunction with the Executive, to nullify it pro 
hac vice, by means of a treaty, any more than it would 
be to repeal it absolutely. 

Mr. Calhoun, on the other hand, contended, that no 
legislative provisions were needed, because the conven- 
tion contemplated only the suspension of the alien dis- 
ability of British subjects, in respect to the commercial 
relations between the two countries, in return and as a 
consideration for a similar suspension by Great Britain 
in favor of American citizens ; that this was a matter 
peculiarly within the province of the treaty-making 
power; and that when a treaty having reference to 
that subject was duly made by the power authorized in 
the constitution, it became the supreme law of the land, 
and, by virtue of its own inherent force and authority, 
suspended the operation of the law imposing the disa- 
bility, so far as the other party to the treaty was con- 
cerned. 

Although the views expressed by Mr. Calhoun did not 
meet with the concurrence of his party friends, except 
in a few instances, there is every reason for supposing 
that the President himself entertained similar opinions, 
— and who was more competent than James Madison 
to decide a question of this character? — for, simul- 

J. ? 

taneously with the publication of the commercial treaty 
as ratified, his proclamation was issued, declaring the 
removal of the restrictions and disabilities in compliance 
with its provisions. Mr. Madison was constitutionallv 



76 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1815-10. 

averse to the exercise of anything like a doubtful power, 
and it was only in extreme cases that he could be in- 
duced to strengthen the executive arm. This was not 
such a case ; and may it. not be inferred, then, that the 
President did not anticipate further action on the part 
of Congress — the Senate having already ratified the 
treaty — nor suppose that any legislative provisions were 
requisite or necessary. 

The question, however, was decided the other way. 
The bill reported by Mr. Forsyth was sustained in the 
House by a large majority ; but the Senate, anticipating 
the result, and not at first disposed to acquiesce in the 
application of the principle with reference to the treaty- 
making power,, contended for by the House, passed a 
bill, declaring, in general terms, that all laws conflict- 
ing with the provisions of the commercial convention 
with Great Britain should be regarded of no effect, in 
respect to British subjects or vessels. The latter bill 
was amended in the House in conformity with the 
wishes of the majority, and the Senate refused to con- 
cur in the amendments. Committees of conference 
were then appointed, and the difficulty was finally set- 
tled by the adoption, substantially, of the provisions of 
the original House bill ; and the law, as enacted, refer- 
red particularly to such acts as imposed "a higher duty 
of tonnage or of impost on vessels and articles imported 
in vessels of Great Britain than on vessels and articles 
imported in vessels of the United States." The prin- 
ciple, if principle it may be called, insisted upon by Mr. 
Forsyth and those who agreed with him in sentiment, 
thus became established as a precedent, which has been 
generally observed in the legislation of the country. 



1815-16.] THE UNITED STATES BANK. 77 

Prominent among the unfortunate results of the war 
of 1812, was the prostration of public and private 
credit. For a long course of years anterior to the 
commencement of hostilities, the policy pursued by 
England and France had been decidedly injurious to 
American commerce ; and all the other great interests 
of the country, from their connection with and depend- 
ence upon it, were necessarily more or less affected by 
the same cause, and in a similar manner. When war 
was declared, business was generally depressed, and it 
did not revive again till the conclusion of the treaty of 
peace. The contest was emphatically one of self-de- 
fence on the part of the United States, — the very ex- 
istence of the government was jeoparded, — and when 
she came out of the struggle, she had saved little more 
than her nationality and her honor. 

It cannot be doubted that the opposition of the fed- 
eral party to the war, and to the measures connected 
with its prosecution brought forward by the friends of 
the administration, tended very much to increase the 
embarrassments under which the government, and the 
people themselves, so long labored. But the main 
cause of all these difficulties was the "peace like a 
war," which followed the Orders in Council and the 
Berlin and Milan decrees, and whose disastrous conse- 
quences were witnessed more clearly and distinctly 
immediately after the actual declaration of war. The 
banks soon suspended specie payments, and immense 
losses were sustained by the government and by private 
individuals, — those of the former amounting, as has 
been estimated, to forty-six millions of dollars.* Loans 

* Report of Mr. McDuffie on the United States Bank (House of 
Representatives), April 13, 1830. 



78 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1815-16. 

for carrying on the war were made with great diffi- 
culty, and often at most ruinous rates. As the cur- 
rency depreciated, the exchanges became deranged, 
and the prices of property rose and fell without any 
seeming regard for the laws which usually govern 
them. ' There was no financial barometer to indicate 
the changes that would take place. The nominal value 
of to-day might be increased or reduced from twenty- 
five to thirty per cent to-morrow, without any osten- 
sible cause. A want of steadiness prevailed every- 
where ; the stagnation of business w T as general ; com- 
merce was completely disordered ; and hopeless and 
irremediable bankruptcy was apprehended. The gov- 
ernment struggled for a time against the tide, but was 

CD O 

finally borne along to the very verge of the abyss upon 
which it hovered when the treaty of Ghent was 
signed. 

What would have been the ultimate effect of the 
impending evils, had the war continued, it is impossi- 
ble to say with certainty ; but the country would either 
have rallied as one man to the support of the govern- 
ment, and by a display of its united, and when united, 
invincible, energies, terminated the contest still more 
gloriously ; or disaffection and division would have 
spread further and wider, and involved everything in 
general ruin. 

When peace was declared, the actual resources of 
the country were found to be far more abundant and 
more promising than had been anticipated, and the sub- 
stantial elements of wealth and prosperity were not 
seriously diminished. But in order to render these 
available, it was evident that some plan must be de- 



1808-16.] COMMERCIAL EMBARRASSMENTS. 79 

vised for procuring relief from the present embarrass- 
ments. They formed an incubus on the body politic 
which it was necessary to remove before activity and 
vigor could return. Many of the most eminent finan- 
ciers, forming their opinions upon the favorable effect 
produced, as was alleged, by the incorporation of a 
national bank in 1791, upon the disordered commerce 
and finances of the country at that period, desired to 
have a similar institution established, for the purpose 
of correcting the evils flowing from the war of 1812, 
in the same manner as those were corrected which 
grew out of the war of the Revolution. 

Indeed, the question of renewing the charter of 1791 
was agitated during the administration of Mr. Jeffer- 
son. In 1808 the stockholders of the old bank applied 
to Congress for a new act of incorporation, and. their 
memorial was referred to the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury, Mr. Gallatin. That officer made his report in 
March, 1809, and recommended, in strong and decided 
terms, the reincorporation of the bank. But the Re- 
publicans were then in a large majority ; Mr. Jefferson 
was well known to be opposed to a national bank, on 
constitutional grounds, while his successor, Mr. Madi- 
son, entertained similar scruples ; and such being the 
opinions of the leaders of the party, the proposition 
was not favorably considered. A bill was reported at 
the session of 1809-10, but no final action w r as had 
upon it. The subject was revived the following year, 
and bills providing for the renewal of the charter were 
introduced into both houses of Congress. In the House 
of Representatives the matter was disposed of by a 
FOte of indefinite postponement, and the Senate bill 



80 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1808-16. 

was lost by the casting vote of the vice-president. 
The question was not then made a party one, although 
a majority of the Republican members appeared to 
doubt the constitutionality of the charter proposed to 
be renewed. Of all the members of Congress, how- 
ever, belonging to both parties, on the " simple ques- 
tion of constitutionality, there was a decided majority 
in favor of it."* 

All the efforts to procure a renewal of the charter of 
the old bank having failed, they rested undisturbed un- 
til the session of 1813-14, when a petition was presented 
in the House of Representatives from the city of New 
York, praying for the incorporation of a national bank, 
with a capital of thirty millions of dollars. The memo- 
rial was referred to the committee of ways and means, 
who reported adversely to the prayer of the petition, 
The subjects of banking and the currency in general 
had attracted the attention of Mr. Calhoun to a con- 
siderable degree, but they were yet comparatively new 
to him. At this time he was favorably impressed 
toward a national bank. The constitutional question 
seemed to him to have been disposed of by the legis- 
lative precedents affirming the right in the general 
government to charter such an institution, yet it does 
not appear that he was entirely decided in his mind in 
regard to this point, for the overruling consideration 
with him undoubtedly was, that a bank was absolutely 
necessary, in his judgment, to relieve the country from 
the existing embarrassments. Without it, as he and 
others thought, the powers expressly granted to the 
general government could not be exercised, and a bank 

* Letter of Mr. Madison to Mr. C. J. Ingersoll, June 25, 1831. 



1813-16.1 his views. 81 



was therefore to be regarded as a mere agent requisite 
to the proper and appropriate exercise of those powers. 

The adverse report of the committee of ways and 
means was made in January, 1814, and on the 4th of 
February following, Mr. Calhoun offered a resolution 
instructing the committee of ways and means to inquire 
into the expediency of establishing a bank in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia. The committee had reported against 
the petition from New York, on the ground that the 
constitution did not authorize the creation of corpora- 
tions within the territorial limits of the states. This 
constitutional difficulty Mr. Calhoun desired to avoid, 
and for all practical purposes he thought a bank located 
in the district would be as useful as that which had 
been proposed in the petition. His resolution was 
agreed to without opposition, and on the 19th of Feb- 
ruary, the committee reported a bill for the establish- 
ment of a national bank in the District of Columbia, 
with a capital of thirty millions of dollars. The prin- 
ciple of this bill was approved by Mr. Calhoun, Mr. 
Cheves, and Mr. Grundy, and opposed by Mr. Eppes, 
the chairman of the committee of ways and means and 
the son-in-law of Mr. Jefferson, and by Mr. Seybert of 
Pennsylvania. Others also disapproved of the bill, for 
the reason that it contained no provision for the estab- 
lishment of branches in the states. A motion was 
therefore made to engraft this feature on it, which re- 
ceived only thirty-six votes, whereupon no further ac- 
tion was had in the premises. 

But the finances of the nation were in an alarming 
condition. The public credit was depreciating almost 
daily. A loan of twenty-five millions had just been 

4# 



82 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1813-16. 

authorized; but treasury notes were seventeen per cent., 
and government stock thirty per cent., below par. It 
was difficult to withstand the influences constantlv 
urging the members of Congress toward a national 
bank as the great panacea which would surely relieve 
the country from the disease under which it was suffer- 
ing. Accordingly, a resolution was introduced near 
the close of the session, providing for the appointment 
of a committee to inquire into the expediency of estab- 
lishing a national bank. The Federal members, with a 
portion of the Republicans, supported a motion to post- 
pone the resolution indefinitely. The motion was lost, 
Mr. Calhoun voting in the negative, and the committee 
was appointed. Of this committee Mr. Calhoun was a 
member. It was now near the close of the session, and 
it was found impossible to harmonize the conflicting 
opinions and views prevailing in the committee in time 
to perfect a bill, wherefore, on motion of Mr. Grundy, 
the chairman, they were discharged without making 
any report. 

Congress was again called together in September, 
1814, and on the 18th day of October, a copy of a 
letter addressed by the Secretary of the Treasury, 
Mr. Dallas of Pennsylvania, to the chairman of the 
committee of ways and means, in reply to an inquiry 
as to the means necessarv to revive and maintain, un- 
impaired, the public credit, was laid before the House 
of Representatives. Among other suggestions, Mr. 
Dallas recommended the establishment of a national 
bank as " the only efficient remedy for the disordered 
condition of the circulating medium." The leading 
features of the plan of the Secretary were a bank to 



1813-16.] PLAN OF MR. DALLAS. 83 

be located at Philadelphia, with power to erect offices 
of discount and deposit elsewhere, whose charter was 
to continue for a period of twenty years ; the capital 
to be fifty millions of dollars, three fifths of which 
were to be subscribed by corporations, companies, or 
individuals, and two fifths by the United States ; the 
subscriptions of corporations, companies, or individ- 
uals, to be paid one fifth in gold or silver coin, and the 
remainder either in gold or silver -coin, or in six per 
cent, stock and treasury notes ; the subscription of the 
United States to be paid in six per cent, stock ; the 
bank to loan the United States thirty millions of dol- 
lars to carry on the war, at such period, and in such 
sums, as might be convenient, and to be exempt from 
any obligation to pay specie during the war, and for 
three years after its termination. 

The plan proposed by Mr. Dallas was approved by 
the President, and great efforts were made to induce 
members to regard it favorably. Mr. Calhoun, among 
others, was urgently solicited to examine the project 
carefully, and if satisfactory to him, to give it his sup- 
port. Considering the object had in contemplation — 
the maintenance of the public credit — Mr. Dallas' plan 
was doubtless well calculated to accomplish the desired 
end. But predisposed as was Mr. Calhoun to a na- 
tional institution of this character, an examination of 
the plan disclosed features as odious as were those re- 
vealed to the fair priestess of Bokhara, when the silver 
veil of Mokanna was flung aside from his foul visage. 
Stripped of all disguise, it was a vast government 
engine — a gigantic project for loaning the credit of the 
government to itself— a scheme for the incorporation 



Q4 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1813-16. 

of the creditors of the United States with power to 
issue notes irredeemable in specie, which were to be 
received in payment of government dues, upon loans 
at six per cent., on a capital or basis of stock upon 
which they were receiving all the while, on an aver- 
age, at least eight per cent. 

Mr. Calhoun had enjoyed a large share of the confi- 
dence and regard of President Madison, but he could 
not sanction this measure. The subject was discussed 
in the House, and he voted for a resolution declaring 
that it was " expedient to establish a national bank, 
with branches in the several states •"* but further than 
that he could not go upon this question. The general 
principle of incorporating a bank met with his appro- 
bation, but the plan before the House was in all its 
prominent features exceptionable in his estimation. 

On the 7th of November the committee of ways and 
means reported a bill, in conformity with the resolution 
of the House, to incorporate the subscribers to the 
Bank of the United States. A long and interesting 
debate ensued upon the merits of the question, Mr. 
Calhoun remaining silent until the second section of 
the bill, which contained the objectionable features, 
was under consideration. He addressed the House on 
the 16th of November, in an elaborate speech, setting 
forth the reasons of his opposition to the bill in its 
present shape, and the outlines of a plan which he had 
himself prepared as a substitute for the former. The 
outlines of Mr. Calhoun's project were : " The capital 
of the bank remaining unchanged, at fifty millions, the 

* Journal of the House of Representatives, 3d session, 13th Congress, 
pp. 504, 505. 



1813-16.] HIS PROPOSITION. 85 

payments of subscriptions to this capital stock to be 
made in the proportion of one tenth in specie, (which 
he afterward varied to six fiftieths) and the remainder 
in specie, or in treasury notes, to be hereafter issued ; 
subscriptions to be opened monthly, in the three last 
days of each month, beginning with January next 
[1815] for certain proportions of the stock, until the 
whole is subscribed ; payment to be made at the time 
of subscribing ; the shares to consist of one hundred, 
instead of five hundred dollars, each ; the United States 
to hold no stock in the bank, have no agency in its 
disposal, nor control over its operations, nor right to 
suspend specie payments. The amount of treasury 
notes to be subscribed, viz., forty-five millions, to be 
provided for by future acts of Congress, and to be dis- 
posed of in something like the following way, viz. : 
Fifteen millions of the amount to be placed in the 
hands of the agents, appointed for the purpose, or in 
the hands of the present commissioners of the sinking 
fund, to go into the stock market, to convert the treas- 
ury notes into stock ; another sum, say five millions, to 
be applied to the redemption of the treasury notes be- 
coming due at the commencement of the ensuing year ; 
the remaining twenty millions he proposed to throw 
into circulation as widely as possible. They might 
be issued in such proportions, monthly, as to be ab- 
sorbed in the subscriptions to the bank, at the end of 
each month, &c. This operation, he presumed, would 
raise the value of treasury notes, perhaps twenty or 
thirty per cent, above par, being the value of the priv- 
ilege of taking the bank stock, and thus afford, at the 
same time, a bonus and an indirect loan to the govern- 



86 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1813-16. 

meat ; making unnecessary any loan by the bank, un- 
til its extended circulation of paper shall enable it to 
make a loan which shall be advantageous to the United 
States. The treasury notes so to be issued to be re- 
deemable in stock, at six per cent., disposable by the 
bank at its pleasure, and without the sanction of gov- 
ernment ;. to whom neither is the bank to be compelled 
to loan any money. This, it is believed, is, in a few 
words, a fair statement of the projet of Mr. Calhoun, 
which he supported by a variety of explanations of its 
operations, &c. ; the notes of the bank, when in opera- 
tion, to be received exclusively in the payment of all 
taxes, duties and debts, to the United States. The 
operation of this combined plan, Mr. C. conceived, 
would be to afford, 1. Relief from the immediate pres- 
sure on the treasury ; 2. A permanent elevation of 
the public credit ; and 3. A permanent and safe circu- 
lating medium of general credit. The bank should go 
into operation, he proposed, in April next [1815.]"* 

The main features of Mr. Calhoun's plan, — the estab- 
lishment of a specie-paying bank, and the use of the 
government of its own credit directly in the shape of 
treasury notes, to be afterward funded in the bank in 
the form of stock, — did him great honor. It was at- 
tacked, however, by Mr. Fisk, Mr. Forsyth, and other 
leading administration members, who contended that 
the present absorption of the United States' stock should 
be provided for, and that the circulation and disposal 
of such an immense mass of treasury notes would be 
attended with great difficulty. In the defence of his 
project, Mr. Calhoun received the cooperation of his 

* History of the Bank of the United States, p. 405. 



1813-16.] DEFEAT OF MR. DALLAS* PLAN. 87 

gifted colleague, Mr. Lowndes, and was likewise ably 
seconded by Mr. Oakley of New York. The substitute 
was finally adopted, instead of the original plan reported 
by the committee, by a very large majority, but it was 
in its turn defeated, probably through the influence of 
the Secretary of the Treasury, who expressed himself 
very strongly against the issue of so large an amount 
of treasury notes as was contemplated.* 

Another bill was then perfected in the Senate, con- 
forming substantially to the recommendations of Mr. 
Dallas, and containing a clause empowering the pro- 
posed bank to suspend specie payments in certain con- 
tingencies during the war and one year thereafter. Re- 
peated efforts were made in the House, by Mr. Calhoun 
and others, to amend the bill in such a manner as that 
the bank would be a specie-paying institution, but they 
all failed of success. On taking the final vote on the 
passage of the bill, there was a tie. Mr. Calhoun voted 
in the negative against the bill. The Speaker, Mr. 
Cheves, now availed himself of his privilege, and voted 
in the negative ; consequently the bill was declared 

lost. 

All parties, however, appeared to be in favor of the 

passage of the bank bill, and it still seemed possible to 
reconcile the conflicting opinions. A third effort was 
therefore made by the adoption of a motion to recon- 
sider the last vote. Mr. Calhoun voted for the recon- 
sideration, though at the same time declaring that he 
was totally opposed to the bill. It was then amended 
by reducing the capital stock, and striking out the forced 

* The capital stock of the bill had previously been reduced to thirty 
millions of dollars. 



88 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1813-16. 

loan feature, and the section authorizing the suspension 
of payments in specie. As amended, the bill passed 
the House on the 7th of January, 1815, by a vote of 
120 to 37, Mr. Calhoun voting in its favor. The 
Senate after some hesitation concurred in the amend- 
ments, and the bill was sent to the President, who re- 
turned it with his objections — based, not on the uncon- 
stitutionality of the measure, but on the ground that it 
would not afford the necessary relief to the treasury. 

The session was now rapidly wearing away, and 
nothing had been done. Still another effort was there- 
fore made to pass a bill. Mr. Calhoun was urgently 
entreated by many of his warmest friends to cease his 
opposition to the plan of the Secretary of the Treasury. 
The often-cited maxim, "inter arma silent leges — ne- 
cessitas non habet legem," was repeatedly uttered in 
his hearing. But he steadily resisted every importunity, 
and with that proud independence of party obligations, 
which ever characterized him, refused to yield a single 
one of his dearly-cherished principles. 

A new bill, according very nearly with the project 
originally recommended by Mr. Dallas, was promptly 
passed in the Senate, on the 11th day of February, and 
forthwith sent to the House. Intelligence of the con- 
clusion of the treaty of peace had now been received, 
and as the necessity for the adoption of the measure 
was not so imminent, on motion of Mr. Lowndes, the 
bill was indefinitely postponed, in order to give time for 
that reflection necessary to produce harmonious ac- 
tion. Though disapproving of the bill, Mr. Calhoun 
voted against the postponement. 

At the following session of Congress, commencing in 



1813— 1G.] BILL KEPORTED BY HIM. 89 

December, 1815, the President recommended, in his 
annual message, that a uniform national currency 
should in some way be provided, and the Secretary of 
the Treasury repeated his suggestions, in a somewhat 
modified form, in regard to a national bank. That por- 
tion of the President's message having reference to a 
uniform national currency, was referred to a select 
committee of which Mr. Calhoun w T as made chairman. 
The restoration of peace and tranquillity had removed 
many of the causes which had induced the insertion of 
the objectionable features in previous bank bills, and 
there seemed now to be but very little diversity of 
opinion. 

On the 8th of January, 1816, Mr. Calhoun made an 
able and elaborate report from the committee on the 
currency, accompanied with a bill for the incorporation 
of a national bank, as " the most certain means of re- 
storing to the nation a specie currency." This bill, 
with some few modifications, subsequently became a 
law, and was known as the bank charter of 1810. 

The currency question was justly regarded as the 
most difficult one considered at this important session. 
" All the banks of the states south of New England 
had, at an early period of the war, stopped payment, 
and gold and silver had entirely disappeared, leaving 
within their limits no other currency than the notes of 
banks, that either would not or could not redeem them. 
Government was forced to submit, and not only to col- 
lect its taxes and dues, and make its disbursements, 
and negotiate its loans in their discredited and depre- 
ciated paper, but also to use them, at the same time, as 
the agents of the treasury and depositories of its funds. 



90 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1813-16. 

At. first the depreciation was inconsiderable, but it con- 
tinued to increase, though unequally, in the different 
portions of the Union to the end of the war. It was 
then hoped it would stop ; but the fact proved far 
otherwise ; for the progress of depreciation became 
more rapid and unequal than ever. It was greatest at 
the centre (the District of Columbia and the adjacent 
region), where it had reached 20 per cent., as com- 
pared with Boston ; nor was there the least prospect 
that it would terminate of itself It became absolutely 
necessary, in this state of things, for the government 
to adopt the rule of collecting its taxes and dues in the 
local currency of the place, to prevent that which was 
most depreciated from flooding the whole Union ; for 
the public debtors, if they had the option, would be 
sure to pay in the most depreciated. But the neces- 
sary effect of this was to turn the whole import trade 
of the country towards the Chesapeake Bay, the region 
where the depreciation was the greatest. By making 
entry there, the duties could be paid in the local de- 
preciated currency, and the goods then shipped where 
they were wanted. The result of the rule, though un- 
avoidable, was to act as a premium for depreciation. 
It was impossible to tolerate such a state of things. It 
was in direct hostility to the constitution, which pro- 
vides that 'all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uni- 
form throughout the United States,' and that ' no pref- 
erence shall be given by any regulation of commerce 
or revenue to the ports of one state over another.' 
Thus the-only question was, What shall be done? 

'•The administration was in favor of a bank, and 
the President (Mr. Madison) recommended one in his 



1813-16.] CHAIRMAN OF THE CURRENCY COMMITTEE. 91 

Message at the commencement of the session. The 
great body of the Republican party in Congress con- 
curred in the views of the administration, but there 
were many of them who had, on constitutional grounds, 
insuperable objections to the measure. These, added 
to the Federal party, who had been against the war, 
and were, in consequence, against a bank, constituted 
a formidable opposition. 

" Mr. Calhoun, whose first lesson on the subject of 
banks, taken at the preceding session, was not calcu- 
lated to incline him to such an institution, was averse, 
in the abstract, to the whole system; but perceiving 
then no other way of relieving government from its 
difficulties, he yielded to the opinion that a bank was 
indispensable. The separation of the government and 
the banks was at that time out of the question. A 
proposition of the kind would have been rejected on 
all sides. Nor was it possible then to collect the taxes 
and dues of the government in specie. It had been 
almost entirely expelled the country ; there appeared 
to be no alternative but to yield to a state of things 
to which no radical remedy could at that time be ap- 
plied, and to resort to a bank to mitigate the evils of a 
system which in its then state was intolerable. This, 
at least, was the view which Mr. Calhoun took, and 
which he expressed in his speech on taking up the bill 
for discussion."* 

The speech of Mr. Calhoun w T as delivered on the 
26th of February. It was decidedly one of his ablest 
efforts, and occupied nearly three hours in its delivery. 
A full report of it has not been preserved, but the fol- 

* Memoir of Mr. Calhoun, 1843, 



92 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1813-16. 

lowing synopsis will give the reader some idea of its 
character : 

SPEECH OX THE BANK BILL, 

Mr. Calhoua rose to explain his views of a subject so interesting to 
the republic, and so necessary to be correctly understood, as that of 
the bill now before the committee. He proposed at this time only to 
discuss general principles, without reference to details. He was aware, 
he said, that principle and detail might be united ; but he should at 
present keep them distinct. He did not propose to comprehend in this 
discussion, the power of Congress to grant Bank Charters; nor the 
question whether the general tendency of banks was favorable or un- 
favorable to the liberty and prosperity of the country ; nor the ques- 
tion whether a National Bank would be favorable to the operations of 
the government. To discuss these questions, he conceived, would be 
a useless consumption of time. The constitutional question had been 
already so freely and frequently discussed, that all had made up their 
mind on it. The question whether banks were favorable to public 
liberty and prosperity, was one purely speculative : The fact of the 
existence of banks, and their incorporation with the commercial con- 
cerns and industry of the nation, proved that inquiry to come too late. 
The only question was, on this hand, under what modifications were 
banks most useful, and whether the United States ought or ought not 
to exercise the power to establish a bank. As to the question whether 
a National Bank would be favorable to the administration of the finan- 
ces of the government, it was one on which there was so little doubt, 
that gentlemen woukd excuse him if he did not enter into it. Leaving 
all these questions then, Mr. C. said, he proposed to examine the cause, 
and state of the disorders of the national currency, and the question 
whether it was in the power of Congress, by establishing a National 
Bank, to remove those disorders. This, he observed, was a question 
of novelty and vital importance ; a question which greatly affected the 
character and prosperity of the country. 

As te the state of the currency of the nation, Mr. C. proceeded to 
remark — that it was extremely depreciated, and in degrees varying ac- 
cording to the different sections of the country, all would assent. That 
this state of the currency was a stain on public and private credit, and 
injurious to the morals of the community, was so clear a position as to 



1813-16.] SPEECH ON THE BANK BILL. 93 

require no proof. There were, however, other considerations arising 
from the state of the currency not so distinctly felt, not so generally 
assented to. The state of our circulating medium was, he said, opposed 
to the principles of the federal constitution. The power was given to 
Congress by that instrument in express terms to regulate the currency 
of the United States. In point of fact, he said, that power, though 
given to Congress, is not in their hands. The power is exercised by 
banking institutions, no longer responsible for the correctness with 
which they manage it. Gold and silver have disappeared entirely ; 
there is no money but paper money, and that money is beyond the 
control of Congress. No one, he said, who referred to the constitution, 
could doubt that the money of the United States was intended to be 
placed entirely under the control of Congress. The only object the 
framers of the constitution could have in view in giving to Congress 
the power " to coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign 
coin," must have been, to give a steadiness and fixed value to the cur- 
rency of the United States. The state of things at the time of the 
adoption of the constitution, afforded Mr. C. an argument in support 
of his construction. There then existed, he said, a depreciated paper 
currency, which could only be regulated and made uniform by giving 
a power for that purpose to the general government : The states could 
not do it. He argued, therefore, taking into view the prohibition 
against the states issuing bills of credit, that there was a strong pre- 
sumption this power was intended to be exclusively given to Congress. 
Mr. C. acknowledged there was no provision in the constitution by 
which states were prohibited from creating the banks which now exer- 
cised this power ; but, he said, banks were then but little known — there 
was but one, the Bank of North America, with a capital of only 
400,000 dollars ; and the universal opinion was, that bank notes repre- 
sented gold and silver, and that there could be no necessity to prohibit 
banking institutions under this impression, because their notes always 
represented gold and silver, and they could not be multiplied beyond 
the demands of the country. Mr. C. drew the distinction between 
banks of deposit and banks of discount, the latter of which were then 
but little understood — and their abuse not conceived until demonstrated 
by recent experience. No man, he remarked, in the Convention, much 
talent and wisdom as it contained, could possibly have foreseen the 
course of these institutions ; that they would have multiplied from 
one to two hundred and sixty ; from a capital of 400,000 dollars to one 



94 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1813-16. 

of eighty millions ; from being consistent with the provisions of the 
constitution, and the exclusive right of Congress to regulate the cur- 
rency, that they would be directly opposed to it ; that so far from their 
credit depending on their punctuality in redeeming their bills with 
specie, they might go on ad infinitum in violation of their contract, 
without a dollar in their vaults. There had, indeed, Mr. C. said, been 
an extraordinary revolution in the currency of the country. By a sort 
of under-current, the power of Congress to regulate the money of the 
country had caved in, and upon its ruin had sprung up those institu- 
tions which now exercised the right of making money for and in the 
United States — for gold and silver are not the only money, but what- 
ever is the medium of purchase and sale, in which bank paper alone 
was now employed, and had, therefore, become the money of the coun- 
try. A change, great and wonderful, has taken place, said he, which 
divests you of your rights, and turns you back to the condition of the 
revolutionary war, in which every state issued bills of credit, which 
were made a legal tender, and were of various value. 

This then, Mr. C. said, was the evil. We have in lieu of gold and 
silver a paper medium, unequally but generally depreciated, which 
afreets the trade and industry of the nation ; which paralyzes the na- 
tional arm ; which sullies the faith, both public and private, of the 
United Staces ; a paper no longer resting on gold and silver as its 
basis. We have indeed laws regulating the currency of foreign coin ; 
but they are under present circumstances a mockery of legislation, be- 
cause there is no coin in circulation. The right of making money, an 
attribute of sovereign power, a sacred and important right, was exer- 
ei-ed by two hundred and sixty banks, scattered over every part of 
the United States, not responsible to any power whatever for their 
of paper. The next and great inquiry was, he said, how this 

i! was to be remedied ? Restore, said lie, these institutions to their 
original use; cause them to give up their usurped power; cause them 
to return to their legitimate office of places of discount and deposit; 
let them be no longer mere paper machines; restore the state of 
things which existed anterior to 1813, which was consistent with the 
just poboy and interests of the country ; cause them to fulfil their con- 
tracts, to respect their broken faith; resolve that everywhere there 
shall be an uniform value to the national currency ; your constitutional 
control will then prevail. 

I low. then, he proceeded to examine, was this desirable end to be 



1813-16.] SPEECH ON THE BANK BILL. 95 

attained ? What difficulties stood in the way ? The reason why the 
banks could not now comply with their contract was that conduct which 
in private life frequently produces the same effect. It was owing to 
the prodigality of their engagements without means to fulfil them ; to 
their issuing more paper than they could possibly redeem with specie. 
In the United States, according to the best estimation, there were not in 
the vaults of all the banks more than fifteen millions of specie, with a 
capital amounting to about eighty-two millions of dollars : hence the 
cause of the depreciation of bank notes — the excess of paper in circula- 
tion beyond that of specie in their vaults. This excess was visible to the 
eye, and almost audible to the ear ; so familiar was the fact, that this 
paper was emphatically called trash or rags. According to estimation, 
also, he said, there were in circulation at the same date, within the 
United States, two hundred millions of dollars of bank notes, credits, 
and bank paper, in one shape or other. Supposing thirty millions of 
these to be in possession of the banks themselves, there were perhaps 
one hundred and sevent}- millions actually in circulation, or on which 
the banks draw interest. The proportion between the demand and 
supply which regulates the price of everything, regulates also the value 
of this paper. In proportion as the issue is excessive, it depreciates in 
value — and no wonder, when, since 1810 or 1811, the amount of paper 
in circulation had increased from eighty or ninety to two hundred mil- 
lions. Mr. C. here examined the opinion entertained by some gentle- 
men, that bank paper had not depreciated, but that gold and silver had 
appreciated, a position he denied by arguments founded on the portabil- 
ity of gold and silver, which would equalize their value in every part 
of the United States, and on the facts that gold and silver coin had in- 
creased in quantity instead of diminishing, and that the exchange with 
Great Britain had been (at gold and silver value) for some time past in 
favor of the United States. Yet, he said, gold ami silver were leaving 
our shores. In fact, we have degraded the metallic currency ; we have 
treated it with indignity, it leaves us, and seeks an asylum on foreign 
shores. Let it become a^ain the basis of bank transactions, and it will 
revisit us. Having established, as he conceived, in the course of his 
remarks, that the excess of paper issue was the true and only cause of 
depreciation of our paper currency, Mr. C. turned his attention to the 
manner in which that excess had been produced. It was intimately 
connected with the suspension of specie payments ; they stood as cause 
and effect : first, the excessive issues caused the suspension of specie 



96 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1813-16. 

payments ; and advantage had been taken of that suspension to issue 
still greater floods of it. The banks had undertaken to do a new busi- 
ness, uncongenial with the nature of such institutions : they undertook 
to make long loans to government, not as brokers, but as stockholders — 
a practice wholly inconsistent with the system of specie payments. 
After showing the difference between the ordinary business of a bank in 
discounts, and the making loans for twelve years, Mr. C. said, indispu- 
tably the latter practice was a great and leading cause of the suspen- 
sion of specie payments. Of this species of property (public stock) the 
banks in the United States held on the 30th day of September last, 
about eighteen and a half millions, and a nearly equal amount of Treas- 
ury Notes, besides stock for long loans made to the state governments, 
amounting altogether to within a small amount of forty millions, being 
a large proportion of their actual capital. This, he said, was the great 
cause of the suspension of specie payments. Had the banks (he now 
discussed the question) the capacity to resume specie payments ? If 
they have the disposition, he said, they may resume specie payments. 
The banks are not insolvent, he said : they never were more solvent. 
If so, the term itself implies, that, if time be allowed them, they may 
befure long be in a condition to resume payment of specie. If the banks 
would regularly and consentaneously begin to dispose of their stock, 
to call in their notes for the Treasury Notes they have, and moderately 
curtail their private discounts ; if they would act in concert in this man- 
ner, they might resume specie payments. If they were to withdraw by 
the sale of a partonly of their stock and Treasury Notes, twenty-five 
millions of their notes from circulation, the rest would be appreciated to 
par, or nearly, and they would still have fifteen millions of stock dis- 
posable to send to Europe for specie, etc. With thirty millions of dol- 
lars in their banks, and so much of their paper withdrawn from circula- 
tion, they would be in a condition to resume payments in specie. The 
only difficulty, that of producing concert, was one which it belonged to 
Congress to surmount. The indisposition of the banks, from motives of 
interest, obviously growing out of the vast profits most of them have 
lately realized, by which the stockholders have realized from twelve to 
twv.ilv p6r cent, on their stock, would be, he showed, the greatest ob- 
stacle. What, he asked, was a bank? An institution, under present 
uses, to make money. What was the instinct of such an institution? 
Gain, gain ; nothing but gain : and they would not willingly relinquish 
their gain from the present state of things, which was profitable to them, 



1813-16.] SPEECH ON THE BANK BILL. 97 

acting as they did without restraint, and without hazard. Those who 
believe that the present state of things would ever cure itself, Mr. C. 
said, must believe what is impossible : banks must change their nature, 
lay aside their instinct, before they will aid in doing what it is not their 
interest to do. By this process of reasoning, he came to the conclusion, 
that it rested with Congress to make them return to specie payments, by 
making it their interest to do so. This introduced the subject of the 
National Bank. 

A national bank, he said, paying specie itself, would have a tendency 
to make specie payments general, as well by its influence as by its ex- 
ample. It will be the interest of the national bank to produce this 
state of things, because otherwise its operations will be greatly circum- 
scribed, as it must pay out specie or national bank notes: for he pre- 
sumed one of the first rules of such a bank would be to take the notes of 
no bank which did not pay in gold and silver. A national bank of thirty- 
five millions, with the aid of those banks which are at once ready to pay 
specie, would produce a powerful effect all over the Union. Further, a 
national bank would enable the government to resort to measures 
which would make it unprofitable to banks to continue the violation of 
their contracts, and advantageous to return to the observation of them. 
The leading measure of this character would be to strip the banks re- 
fusing to pay specie of all the profits arising from the business of the 
government, to prohibit deposits with them, and to refuse to receive 
their notes in payment of dues to the government. How far such meas- 
ures would be efficacious in producing a return to specie payments, he 
was unable to say — but it was as far as he would be willing to go at 
the present session. If they persisted in refusing to resume payments in 
specie, Congress must resort to measures of a deeper tone, which they 
had in their power. 

The restoration of specie payments, Mr. C. argued, would remove the 
embarrassments on the industry of the country, and the stains from its 
public and private faith. It remained to see whether this house, with- 
out whose aid it was in vain to expect success in this object, would have 
the fortitude to apply the remedy. If this was not the proper remedy, 
he hoped it would be shown by the proposition of a proper substitute, 
and not opposed by vague and general declamation against banks. The 
disease, he said, was deep ; it affected public opinion — and whatever 
affects public opinion touches the vitals of the government. Hereafter, 
he said, Congress would never stand in the same relation to this meas- 



98 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1813-16. 

ure in which they now did. The disease arose in time of war — the war 
had subsided, but left the disease, which it was now in the power of 
Congress to eradicate — but, if they did not now exercise the power, they 
would become abettors of a state of things which was of vital conse- 
quence to public morality, as he showed by various illustrations. He 
called upon the house, as guardians of the public weal, of the health of 
the body politic which depended on the public morals, to interpose 
against a state of things which was inconsistent with either. He ap- 
pealed to the house, too, as the guardians of public and private faith. 
In what manner, he asked, were the public contracts fulfilled ? In gold 
and silver, in which the government had stipulated to pay ? ]S T o ; in 
paper issued by these institutions; in paper greatly depreciated; hi 
paper depreciated from five to twenty per cent, below the currency in 
which the government had contracted to pay, etc. He added another 
argument — the inequality of taxation, in consequence of the state of the 
circulating medium, which, notwithstanding the taxes were laid with 
strict regard to the constitutional provision for their equality, made the 
people in one section of the Union pay perhaps one fifth more of the 
same tax than those in another. The constitution having given Con- 
gress the power to remedy these evils, they were, he contended, deeply 
responsible for their continuance. 

The evil he desired to remedy, Mr. C. said, was a deep one ; almost 
incurable, because connected with public opinion, over which banks have 
a great control — they have, in a great measure, a control over the press ; 
for proof of which he referred to the fact, that the present wretched 
state of the circulating medium had scarcely been denounced by a 
single paper within the United States. The derangement of a circulat- 
ing medium, he said, was a joint thrown out of its socket ; let it remain 
for a tdiort time in that state, and the sinews will be so knit, that it 
cannot be replaced — apply the remedy soon, and it is an operation 
easy though painful. The evil grows, whilst the resistance to it be- 
comes weak ; and, unless checked at once, will become irresistible. 
Mr. C. concluded the speech of which the above is a mere outline, 
which the imagination of the reader must fill up, by observing, that he 
could have said much more on this important subject, but he knew 
how difficult it was to gain the attention of the house to long ad- 
dresses. 



The foregoing is, indeed, but a meagre sketch of 



1813-16.] PASSAGE OF THE BILL. 99 

Mr. Calhoun's speech, yet it will suffice to show his 
position at that period. The question of the constitu- 
tionality of a national bank he did not consider. He 
seems to have regarded it as a settled one, and advo- 
cated the incorporation of a bank as a matter of neces- 
sity and expediency, — as " the only adequate resource/' 
in the lano;uao;e of President Madison, " to relieve the 
country and the government from the present embar- 
rassment." It was necessary, to enable the govern- 
ment to provide a constitutional currency for the peo- 
ple, and highly expedient as one of the features in a 
general system of preparation against the manifold 
evils arising out of a state of war from which the 
country had just escaped. 

Mr. Calhoun defended the bill throughout the whole 
debate with great ability, and it finally passed the 
House on the 14th of March, 1816, by a vote of 80 to 
71, his name being recorded in favor of its passage. 
The bill likewise received a favorable vote in the Sen- 
ate, and being approved by the President, became the 
law of the land. 



CHAPTER V. 

Changes in Politics — Consistency of Mr. Calhoun— Resolution of 1816 — 
The Direct Tax— Speech— Tariff Act of 1816— Views of Mr. Calhoun 
— Principle of the Law — The Military Academy — The Compensation 
Act — Temporary Displeasure of his Constituents — Internal Im- 
provements — Veto of Mr. Madison. 

How true is it that there are no absolute rules in 
politics.. — that the occasion often serves to establish the 
principle, rather than the principle to govern the oc- 
casion. 

Truth has no attribute — not her simplicity nor her 
beauty — more lovely than her consistency with herself. 
Her principles are unchanging and unchangeable, — 

" The eternal years of God are hers !" 

The great laws of Nature endure forever ; they are 
as permanent and as immovable as He who established 
them. The earth and its sister orbs, although ages 
have elapsed since the period of their creation, con- 
tinue to move on in the courses to which thev have 
been accustomed from the beginning. The bow of 
promise displays the same gorgeous colors, as when it 
first broke, like some blessed vision, on the raptured 
gaze of Noah and his family. One season is'succeeded 
by another, in the appointed order. The storm alter- 
nates with the sunshine, the flower blossoms and per- 



1815-16.] CHANGES IN POLITICS. 101 

ishes, and life and vigor are followed by decrepitude 
and decay; yet all is in accordance with a system,' a 
harmony, and a law. 

But whatever bears the impress of humanity, or is 
of human invention, is constantlv altering its char- 
acter, and presenting itself in some new shape or ap- 
pearance. Two spirits — the spirit of preservation and 
the spirit of destruction — are continually warring 
against each other. Conservatism and Progress, like 
the good and the bad angel, are ever striving for the 
ascendency; the former clinging with tenacity to 
whatsoever the past has hallowed, and the latter gain- 
ing ground inch by inch and foot by foot. Things old 
and venerable are every day being supplanted by strange 
inventions. " Revolution" is not merely the impres- 
sive catch-word of the Frondeur or the rebel, and de- 
signed to arouse the oppressed to resistance ; its influ- 
ence is everywhere visible, and is everywhere felt. 
Innovation is not now confined to powder, wigs, curls, 
hoops, and the thousand and ten thousand appendages 
which have been invented by fashion, sometimes to 
make up for the deficiencies of the outer man and the 
outer woman, but oftener to mar and spoil the fair pro- 
portions of the Almighty's handiwork : — it is a govern- 
ing, and a controlling power, in the court and in the 
cabinet ; it rules in the humble cottage of the laborer 
and in the splendid mansion of the millionaire ; it pre- 
sides in the ball-room and at the fete, in the council- 
chamber and at the political convention ; it is with the 
farmer at his plough, the artisan in his workshop, the 
beauty at her toilet, the scholar in his study, the judge 
on the bench, and the statesman in his closet. 



102 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1815-16. 

" Times change and men change with them" — is, if 
anything, truer at this day than it was nineteen hun- 
dred years ago. It is very common to decry politi- 
cians who act from motives of expediency, — entirely 
regardless of the fact that there are two classes of such 
motives, the one base and selfish, and the other honor- 
able and praiseworthy. He cannot be a just, or an 
enlightened statesman, who adheres to ancient forms 
and precedents, indifferent to the age in which he lives, 
and to the circumstances by which he is surrounded. 
A great principle, indeed, is too important to be idly 
sacrificed, yet it may be made to conform to the 
changes daily taking place in the condition and in the 
relations of men, without sacrificing any portion of its 
spirit. Hence, it is not to be regretted, that there are 
no absolute rules in politics ; and the statesman who 
feels compelled by the force of causes which he cannot 
control, to alter the system of policy which he has ad- 
vocated, or to substitute one measure for another 
which he has favored, though still watching closely the 
principles, which, as beacon lights, have guided his 
course, deserves far more of honor than of censure. 

Few among modern statesmen, have maintained a 
higher character for consistency than Mr. Calhoun. 
As has been remarked, he set aside the question of the 
constitutionality of a national bank, when the subject 
was first presented to him, and advocated the establish- 
ment of such an institution, in order to put an end to 
the suspension of specie payments, and to restore to 
the people the national currency — that of gold and sil- 
ver — alone recognized by the constitution, of which 
they had been for years deprived. He never lost sight 






1815-16.] RESOLUTION OF 1816. 103 

of this great principle in regard to the constitutional 
currency, and in furtherance of it, earnestly supported, 
and voted for, the resolution of 1816, which provided 
that specie, or the notes of banks paying specie, should 
alone be received in payment of government dues. 
This was the first step taken toward the entire separa- 
tion of the general government from the banking sys- 
tem, — a measure which he lived to see accomplished, 
and, in no small degree, through his own disinterested 
and untiring efforts. The immediate effect produced 
by the incorporation of the bank in 1816, and the 
adoption of the specie resolution, was salutary ; and 
through their agency, the currency of the country was 
soon brought back, as Mr. Calhoun desired, to the 
specie standard. 

Two other most important questions, intimately con- 
nected with each other, and with the finances of the 
countrv, were agitated at the session of 1815-16. At 
an early day in the session, Mr. Lowndes, as the chair- 
man of the committee of ways and means, reported a 
series of resolutions, providing for the continuance, for 
a limited period, of the direct tax which had been im- 
posed on account of the exigencies of the war, and 
contemplating the establishment of a new tariff of 
duties. The direct tax was ordered to be continued 
by a vote of the House, Mr. Calhoun voting with the 
majority. In regard to a new tariff there was, per- 
haps, more diversity of opinion as to minor details, but 
not so much as to the general principle. In March, 
1816, the tariff act of that year was reported from the 
committee of ways and means, and received the sup- 
port of Mr. Calhoun. Probably no one act of his life 



104 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1815-16. 

has been more severely criticised and censured than 
his connection with the tariff of 1816. Before pro- 
ceeding to notice particularly his course in relation to 
that measure, it may be well to consider the motives 
which governed him, and the reasons which influenced 
his action, as expressed by himself. 

Premising, that during the debate on the direct tax, 
and the tariff act proper, the whole question in regard 
to the permanent defence of the country, the develop- 
ment and improvement of its resources, and the pro- 
tection of all its great interests, including that of 
manufactures then in its infancy, was considered, — let 
us see how he has put himself upon the record. In 
the course of the debate on the direct tax, he made the 
following speech, which was delivered on the 4th of 
April, 1816. 

SPEECH ON THE DIRECT TAX, 

Mr. Calhoun commenced his remarks by observing, that there were 
in the affairs of nations, not less than that of individuals, moments, on 
the proper use of which depended their fame, prosperity and duration. 
Such he conceived to be the present situation of this nation. Recently 
emerged from a war, we find ourselves in possession of a physical and 
moral power of great magnitude ; and, impressed by the misfortunes 
which have resulted from want of forecast heretofore, we are disposed 
to apply our means to the purposes most valuable to the country. He 
hoped, that in this interesting situation, we should be guided by the 
dictates of truth and wisdom only, that we should prefer the lasting 
happiness of our country to its present ease, its security to its pleasure, 
fair honor and reputation, to inglorious and inactive repose. 

We are now called on to determine what amount of revenue is neces- 
sary for this country in time of peace ; this involves the additional 
question, what are the means which the true interests of this country 
demand ? The principal expense of our government grows out of 



1815-16.] SPEECH ON THE DIRECT TAX. 105 

measures necessary for its defence ; and in order to decide what those 
measures ought to be, it will be proper to inquire what ought to be 
our policy towards other nations ? and what will probably be theirs 
towards us ? He intentionally laid out of consideration the financial 
questions, which some gentlemen had examined in the debate ; and also 
the question of retrenchments, on which he would only remark, that 
he hoped, whatsoever of economy entered into the measures of Con- 
gress, they would be divested of the character of parsimony. 

Beginning with the policy of this country, it ought, he said, to cor- 
respond with the character of its political institutions. What then is 
their character ? They rest on justice and reason. Those being the 
foundations of our government, its policy ought to comport with them. 
It is the duty of all nations, especially of one whose institutions recog- 
nize no principle of force, but appeal to virtue for their strength, to act 
with justice and moderation; with moderation, approaching to forbear- 
ance. In all possible conflicts with foreign powers, our government 
should be able to mike it manifest to the world, that it has justice on 
its side. We should always forbear if possible, until all should be sat- 
isfied, that when we take up anus, it is not for the purpose of conquest, 
but maintaining our essential rights. Our government, however, is also 
founded on equality ; it permits no man to exercise violence ; it permits 
none to trample on the rights of his fellow citizen with impunity. 
These maxims we should also carry into our intercourse with foreign 
nations, and as we render justice to all, so we should be prepared to 
exact it from all. Our policy should not only be moderate and just, but 
as high-minded as it is moderate and just. This, said Mr. C, appears 
to me the true line of conduct. In the policy of nations, said he, there 
are two extremes : one extreme in which justice and moderation may 
sink into feebleness — another in which that lofty spirit, which ought to 
animate all nations, particularly free ones, may mount up to military 
violence. These extremes ought to be equally avoided ; but of the 
two, he considered the first far the most dangerous, far the most fatal. 
There were, he said, two splendid examples of nations winch had ulti- 
mately sunk by military violence — the Romans in ancient time, the 
French in modern. But how numerous were the instances of nations 
gradually sinking into nothingness through imbecility and apathy. 
They have not indeed struck the mind as forcibly as the instance just 
mentioned ; because they have sunk ingloriously, without anything in 
their descent to excite either admiration or respect. I consider the ex- 

5* 



106 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1815-16. 

treme of weakness not only the most dangerous of itself, said Mr. C, 
but as that extreme to which the people of this country are peculiarly 
liable. The people are, indeed, high-minded ; and, therefore, it may 
be thought my fears are unfounded. But they are blessed with much 
happiness ; moral, political and physical : these operate on the dispo- 
sitions and habits of this people, with something like the effects attrib- 
uted to southern climates — they dispose them to pleasure and to inac- 
tivity, except in the pursuit of wealth. I need not appeal to the past 
history of the country ; to the indisposition of this people to war from 
the commencement of the government — arising from the nature of our 
habits, and the disposition to pursue those courses which contribute to 
swell our private fortunes. We incline, not only from the causes 
already mentioned, but from the nature of our foreign relations, to that 
feeble policy, which I consider as more dangerous than the other ex- 
treme. We have, it is true, dangers to apprehend from abroad — but 
they are far off, at the distance of three thousand miles : which pre- 
vents that continued dread which they would excite if in our neighbor- 
hood. Besides, we can have no foreign war which we should dread, or 
ought to fear to meet, but a war with England ; but a war with her 
breaks in on the whole industry of the country, and affects all its pri- 
vate pursuits. On this account we prefer suffering very great wrongs 
from her, rather than to redress them by arms. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania asked if the country did forbear till it felt disgraced, 
whose fault was it ? Not, he said, that of the administrations of Wash- 
ington or Adams ; for neither of them had left it so. A few words, 
said Mr. C, on this point. The fault was principally in neither of our 
several administrations ; in neither of the two great parties. It arose 
from the indisposition of the people to resort to arms, from the reason 
already assigned. It arose also from two incidental circumstances — the 
want of preparation, and the untried character of our government in 
war. But there were other circumstances connected with the party to 
which the gentleman belongs, which caused the country to forbear too 
long. That party took advantage of the Indisposition of the people to 
an English war, and preached up the advantages of peace when it had 
become ignominious ; and until we had scarcely the ability to defend 
ourselves. The gentleman from Pennsylvania further said, if peace 
had not been made when it was, we should not have been here delib- 
erating at this time. This assertion is an awful one, if true. If the 
nation was on the verge of ruin, the defects which brought it to that 



2815-16.] SPEECH ON THE DIRECT TAX. 107 

situation ought to be known, probed and corrected, even if they rose 
out of the constitution. But, Mr. C. said, it is an assertion that ought 
not to be lightly made. The effects are dangerous ; for what man 
hereafter, with such consequences before his eyes, would venture to 
propose a war ? If such were the admitted fact, a future enemy would 
persist in war, expecting the country to sink before his efforts : his arms 
would be steeled, his exertions nerved against us. The position was in 
every view, one of that dangerous bearing on the future relations of the 
country, that it ought not to be admitted without the strongest proof. 
What, said Mr. 0.', was the fact ? What had been the progress of events 
for a few months preceding the termination of the war ? At Balti- 
more, at Plattsburg, at New Orleans, the invaders had been signally 
defeated ; a new spirit was diffused through the whole mass of the 
community. Can it be believed then, that the government was on the 
verge of dissolution? No, sir; it never stood firmer on its basis than 
at that moment. It was true, indeed, we labored under great difficul- 
ties but it is an observation made by a statesman of great sagacity, 
Edmund Burke, when Pitt was anticipating the downfall of France 
through her finances, that an instance is not to be found of a hio-h- 
minded nation sinking under financial difficulties — and it would have 
been exemplified in our country had the war continued. Men on all sides 
began to unite in defence of the country ; parties in this house began 
to rally on this point, and if the gentleman from Pennsylvania had 
been a member at that time, he also, from what he has said, would 
have taken that ground. The gentleman had taken a position on this 
point as erroneous as it was dangerous ; and, Mr. C. said, he had thought 
proper thus to notice it. 

As a proof, said Mr. C, that the situation of the country naturally 
inclines us to too much feebleness rather than too much violence, I re- 
fer to the fact, that there are on this floor, men who are entirely op- 
posed to armies, to navies, to every means of defence. Sir, if their 
politics prevail, the country will be disarmed, at the mercy of any for- 
eign power. On the other side, sir, there is no excess of military fer- 
vor, no party inclining to military despotism : for, though a charge of 
such a disposition has been made by a gentleman in debate, it is with- 
out the shadow of foundation. What is the fact m regard to the army ? 
Does it bear out his assertion ? Is it even proportionally larger now 
than it was in 1801-2, the period which the gentleman considers as the 
standard of political perfection ? It was then about 4000 men ; it was 



108 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1815-16. 

larger in proportion than an army of 10,000 men would now be. The 
charge of a disposition to make this a military government, exists only 
in the imaginations of gentlemen ; it cannot be supported by facts ■ it 
is contrary to proof and to evidence. 

Having dismissed this part of the subject, Mr. C. proceeded to con- 
sider another part of it, in his opinion equally important, viz. : What 
will be the probable policy of other nations ? With the world at large, 
said he, we are now at peace. I know of no nation with which we 
shall probably come into collision, unless it be with Great Britain and 
Spain. With both of these nations we have considerable points of 
collision : I hope this country will maintain, in regard to both of them, 
the strictest justice : but with both these nations there is a possibility, 
sooner or later, of our being engaged in war. As to Spain, I will say 
nothing, because she is the inferior of the two, and those measures 
which apply to the superior power, will include also the inferior. I 
shall consider our relations then with England only. 

Peace now exists between the two countries As to its duration, I 
will give no opinion, except that I believe the peace will last the longer 
for the war which has just ended. Evidences have been furnished dur- 
ing the war of the capacity and character of this nation, which will 
make her indisposed to try her strength with us on slight grounds. 
But, what is the probable course of events respecting the future rela- 
tions between the two countries? England is the most formidable 
power in the world : she has the most numerous army and navy at 
her command. We, en the contrary, are the most growing nation on 
earth ; most rapidly improving in those very particulars, in which she 
excels. This question then presents itself : will the greater power per- 
mit the less to attain its destined greatness by natural growth, or will 
she take measures to disturb it ? Those who know the history of na- 
tions, will not believe that a rival will look unmoved on this prosperity. 
It has been said, that nations have heads, but no hearts. Every states- 
man, every one who loves his country, who wishes to maintain the dig- 
nity of that country, to see it attain the summit of greatness and pros- 
perity, regards the progress of other nations with a jealous eye. The 
English statesmen have always so acted. I rind no fault with them on 
that account, but rather to point it out as a principle which ought also 
to govern our conduct in regard to them. Will Great Britain permit 
us to go on in an uninterrupted march to the height of national great- 
ness and prosperity ? I fear not. But, admitting the councils on that 



1815-16.] SPEECH ON THE DIRECT TAX. 109 

side of the water to be governed by a degree of magnanimity and jus- 
tice, the world has never experienced from them, and I am warranted 
in saying never will, may not some unforeseen collision involve you in 
hostilities with Great Britain ? Gentlemen on the other side have said, 
that there are points of difference with that nation (existing prior to 
the war) which are yet unsettled. I grant it. If such, then, be the 
fact, does it not show that points of collision remain — that whenever 
the same condition of the world that existed before the war shall recur, 
the same collisions will probably take place ? If Great Britain sees 
the opportunity of enforcing the same doctrines we have already con- 
tested, will she not seize it ? Admitting this country to maintain that 
policy which it ought ; that its councils be governed by the most per- 
fect justice and moderation, we yet see, said Mr. Calhoun, that by a 
difference of views on essential points, the peace between the two na- 
tions is liable to be jeopardized. I am sure, that future wars with 
England are not only possible ; but, I will say more, that they are 
highly probable — nay, that they will certainly take place. Future 
wars, I fear, with the honorable Speaker, future wars, long and bloody, 
will exist between this country and Great Britain : I lament it — but I 
will not close my eyes on future events ; I will not betray the high 
trust reposed in me ; I will speak what I believe to be true. You will 
have to encounter British jealousy and hostility in every shape, not im- 
mediately manifested by open force or violence, perhaps, but by indi- 
rect attempts to check your growth and prosperity. As far as they 
can, they will disgrace everything connected with you ; her reviewers, 
paragraphists and travellers will assail you and your institutions, and 
no means will be left untried to bring you to contemn yourselves, and 
be contemned by others. I thank my God, they have not now the 
means of effecting it which they once had. No; the late war has 
given you a mode of feeling and thinking which forbids the acknowl- 
edgment of national inferiority, that first of political evils. Had we not 
encountered Great Britain, we should not have had the brilliant points 
to rest on which we now have. We, too, have now our heroes and 
illustrious actions. If Britain has her Wellington, we have our Jack- 
sons, Browns and Scotts. If she has her naval heroes, we have them 
not less renowned, for they have snatched the laurel from her brows. 
It is impossible that we can now be degraded by comparisons ; I trust 
we are equally above corruption and intrigue : it only remains then to 
try the contest by force of arms. 



110 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1815-16. 

Let us now, said Mr. C, consider the measures of preparation -which 
sound policy dictates. First, then, as to extent, without reference to 
the kind : They ought to be graduated by a reference to the character 
and capacity of both countries. England excels in means all countries 
that now exist, or ever did exist ; and has besides great moral re- 
sources — intelligent and renowned for masculine virtues. On our part\, 
our measures ought to correspond with that lofty policy which become 
freemen determined to defend our rights. Thus circumstanced on both 
sides, we ought to omit no preparation fairly in our means. Next, as 
to the species of preparation, -which opens subjects of great extent and 
importance. The navy most certainly, in any point of view, occupies 
the first place. It is the most safe, most effectual, and the cheapest 
mode of defence. For, let the fact be remembered, our navy cost less 
per man, including all the amount of extraordinary expenditures on the 
Lakes, than our army. This is an important fact, which ought to be 
fixed in the memory of the house ; for, if that force be the most effi- 
cient and safe, which is at the same time the cheapest, on that should 
be our principal reliance. We have heard much of the danger of 
standing armies to our liberties — the objection cannot be made to the 
navy. Generals, it must be acknowledge;!, have often advanced at the 
head of arms to Imperial rank and power; but in what instance had 
an Admiral usurped on the liberties of his country ? Put our strength 
in the navy for foreign defence, and we shall certainly escape the whole 
catalogue of possible ills, painted by gentlemen on the other side. A 
naval power attacks that country, from whose hostility alone we have 
anything: to dread, where she is most assailable, and defends this coun- 
try where it is weakest. Where is Great Britain most vulnerable ? 
In what point is she most accessible to attack ? In her commerce — in 
her navigation. There she is not only exposed, but the blow is fatal. 
There is her strength ; there is the secret of her power. Here, then, 
if ever it become necessary, you ought to strike. But where are you 
most exposed? On the Atlantic line ; a line so long and so weak, that 
you are peculiarly liable to be assailed in it. How is it to be de- 
fended X By a navy, and by a navy alone can it be efficiently defended. 
Let us look back to the time when the enemy was in possession of the 
whole line of the sea coast, moored in your rivers, and ready to assault 
you at every point. The facts are too recent to require to be painted — I 
will only generally state that your commerce was cut up ; your specie 
circulation destroyed ; your internal communication interrupted, your 



1815-16.] SPEECH ON THE DIRECT TAX. HI 

best and cheapest highway being entirely in possession of the enemy ; 
your ports foreign, the one to the other ; your treasury exhausted, in 
merely defensive preparations and militia requisitions, not knowing 
where you would be assailed, you had at the same moment, to stand 
prepared at every point, A recurrence of this state" of things, so op- 
pressive to the country, in the event of another war, could be pre- 
vented only by the establishment and maintenance of a sufficient naval 
force. Mr. C. said he had thought proper to press this point thus 
strongly, because, though it was generally assented to that the navy 
ou"-ht to be increased, he found that assent *too cold, and the approba- 
tion bestowed on it too negative in its character. It ought, it is said, 
to be gradually increased. If the navy is to be increased at all, let its 
augmentation be limited only by your ability to build, officer, and man. 
If it is the kind of force most safe, and at the same time most efficient 
to guard against foreign invasion, or repel foreign aggression, you ought 
to put your whole force on the sea side. It is estimated that we have 
in our country eighty thousand sailors. This would enable us to man 
a considerable fleet, which, if well directed, would give us the habitual 
command on our own coast ; an object, in every point of view, so de- 
sirable. Not that we ought, hastily, without due preparation, under 
present circumstances, to build a large number of vessels ; but we ought 
to commence preparation, establish docks, collect timber and naval 
stores, and, as soon as the materials are prepared, we ought to com- 
mence building, to the extent which I have mentioned. If anything 
can preserve the country in its most imminent dangers from abroad, it 
is this species of armament. If we desire to be free from future wars, 
as I hope we may, this is the only way to effect it. We shall have 
peace then, and what is of still higher moment, with perfect security. 
In regard to our present military establishment, Mr. C. said, it was 
small enough. That point the honorable Speaker had fully demon- 
strated : it was not sufficiently large at present to occupy all our for- 
tresses. Gentlemen had spoken in favor of the militia, and against the 
army. In regard to the militia, said Mr. C, I would go as far as any 
gentleman, and considerably farther than those would who are so vio- 
lently opposed to our small army. I would not only arm the militia, 
but I would extend their term of service, and make them efficient. To 
talk about the efficiency of militia called into active service for six 
months only, is to impose on the people ; it is to ruin them with false 
hopes. I know the danger of large standing armies, said Mr. C. I 



112 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1815-16. 

know the militia are the true force ; that no nation can be safe at home 
and abroad, which has not an efficient militia ; but the time of service 
ought to be enlarged, to enable them to acquire a knowledge of the 
duties of the camp, to let the habits of civil life be broken. For though 
militia, freshly drawn from their homes, may, in a moment of enthusi- 
asm, do great service, as at ]Sew Orleans, in general they are not calcu- 
lated for service in the field, until time is allowed for them to acquire 
habits of discipline and subordination. Your defence ought to depend 
on the land, on a regular draft from the body of the people. It is thus 
in time of war the business of recruiting will be dispensed with ; a mode 
of defending the country every way uncongenial with our republican 
institutions ; uncertain, slow in its operation, and expensive, it draws 
from society its worse materials, introducing into our army, of necessity, 
all the severities which are exercised in that of the most despotic gov- 
ernment. Thus compounded, our army in a great degree lose that en- 
thusiasm with which citizen-soldiers, conscious of liberty, and fighting in 
defence of their country, have ever been animated. All free nations of 
antiquity entrusted the defence of their country not to the dregs of so- 
ciety, but to the body of citizens ; hence that heroism which modern 
times may admire but cannot equal. I know that I utter truths un- 
pleasant to those who wish to enjoy liberty without making the efforts 
necessary to secure it. Her favor is never won by the cowardly, the 
vicious, or indolent. It has been said by some physicians that life is a 
forced state ; the same may be said of freedom. It requires efforts ; it 
pre-supposes mental and moral qualities of a high order to be generally 
diffused in the society where it exists. It mainly stands on the faithful 
discharge of two great duties which every citizen of proper age owes 
tbe republic ; a wise and virtuous exercise of the right of suffrage ; and 
a prompt and brave defence of the country in the hour of danger. The 
first symptom of decay has ever appeared in the backward and neg- 
ligent discharge of the latter duty. Those who are acquainted with 
the historians and orators of antiquity know the truth of this assertion. 
The least decay of patriotism, the least verging towards pleasure and 
luxury will there immediately discover itself. Large standing and 
mercenary armies then become necessary ; and those who are not will- 
ing to render the military service essential to the defence of their rights, 
soon find, as they ought to do, a master. It is the order of nature and 
cannot be reversed. This would at once put an adequate force in your 
hands, and render you secure. I cannot agree with those who think 



1815-16.] SPEECH ON THE DIRECT TAX. 113 

that we are free from clanger, and need not to prepare for it, because 
we have no nation in our immediate neighborhood to dread. Recollect 
that the nation with whom we have recently terminated a severe con- 
flict, lives on the bosom of the deep ; that although three thousand miles 
of ocean intervene between us, she can attack you with as much facility 
as if she had but two hundred or two hundred and fifty miles over land 
to march. She is as near you as if she occupied Canada instead of the 
islands of Great Britain. You have the power of assailing as well as 
being assailed ; her provinces border on our territory, the dread of los- 
ing which, if you are prepared to attack them, will contribute to that 
peace which every honest man is anxious to maintain as long as pos- 
sible with that country. 

Mr. C. then proceeded to a point of less but yet of great importance — 
he meant, the establishment of roads, and opening canals in various parts 
of the country. Your country, said he, has certain points of feebleness 
and certain points of strength about it. Your feebleness should be re- 
moved, your strength unproved. Your population is widely dispersed. 
Though this is greatly advantageous in one respect, that of preventing 
the country from being permanently conquered, it imposes a great dif- 
ficulty in defending your territory from invasion, because of the difficulty 
of transportation from one point to another of your widely-extended 
frontier. We ought to contribute as much as possible to the formation 
of good military roads, not only on the score of general political econo- 
my, but to enable us on emergencies to collect the whole mass of our 
military means on the point menaced. The people are brave, great, 
and spirited, but they must be brought together in sufficient number, 
and with a certain promptitude to enable them to act with effect. The 
importance of military roads was well known to the Romans : the re- 
mains of their roads exist to this day, some of them uninjured by the 
ravages of time. Let us make great permanent roads, not like the Ro- 
mans, with a view of subjecting and ruling provinces, but for the more 
honorable purpose of defence ; and connecting more closely the interests 
of various sections of this great country. Let any one look at the vast 
cost of transportation during the war, much of which is chargeable to 
the want of good roads and canals, and he will not deny the vast im- 
portance of a due attention to this object. 

Mr. C. proceeded to another topic — the encouragement proper to be 
afforded to the industry of the country. In regard to the question, how 
far manufactures ought to be fostered, Mr. 0. said it was the duty of 



114 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1815-16. 

this country, as a means of defence, to encourage the domestic industry 
of the country, more especially that part of it which provides the neces- 
sary materials for clothing and defence. Let us look at the nature of 
the war most likely to occur. England is La the possession of the ocean; 
no man, however sanguine, can believe that we can deprive her soon of 
her predominance there. That control deprives us of the means of 
maintaining our army and navy cheaply clad. The question relating to 
manufactures must not depend on the abstract principle, that industry 
left to pursue its own course, will find in its own interest all the en- 
couragement that is necessary. I lay the claims of the manufacturers 
entirely out of view, said Mr. C— but on general principles, without re- 
gard to their interest, a certain encouragement should be extended at 
least to our woollen and cotton manufactures. 

There was another point of preparation which, Mr. C. said, ought not 
to be overlooked— the defence of our coast, by means other than the 
navy, on which we ought to rely mainly, but not entirely. The coast 
is our weak part, which ought to be rendered strong, if it be in our 
power to make it so. There are two points on our coast particularly 
weak, the mouths of the Mississippi and the Chesapeake Bay, which 
ought to be cautiously attended to, not however neglecting others. 
The administration which leaves these two points in another war without 
fortification, ought to receive the execration of the country. Look at 
the facility afforded by the Chesapeake Bay to maritime powers in at- 
tacking us. If we estimate with it the margin of rivers navigable for 
vessels of war, it adds fourteen hundred miles at least to the line of our 
sea-coast ; and that of the worst character, for when an enemy is there, 
it is without the fear of being driven from it : he has, besides, the power 
of assaulting two shores at the same time, and must be expected on 
both. Under such circumstances, no degree of expense would be too 
great for its defence. The whole margin of the bay is besides an ex- 
tremely sickly one, and fatal to the militia of the upper country. How 
it is to be defended, military and naval men will best judge, but I be- 
lieve that steam frigates ought at least to constitute a part of the 
means ; the expense of which, however great, the people ought and 
would cheerfully bear. 

There were other points to which, Mr. C. said, he might call the at- 
tention of the committee, but for the fear of fatiguing them. He would 
mention only his views in regard to our finance, as connected with pre- 
paratory measures. A war with Great Britain, said he, will iminedi- 



1815-16.] SPEECH ON THE DIRECT TAX. 115 

ately distress your finance, as far as your revenue depends on imports. 
It is impossible during war to prepare a system of internal revenue in 
time to meet the defect thus occasioned. Will Congress then leave the 
nation wholly dependent on foreign commerce for its revenue ? This 
nation, Mr. C. said, was rapidly changing the character of its industry. 
"When a nation is agricultural, depending for supply on foreign markets, 
its people may be taxed through its impost almost to the amount of its 
capacity. The nation was, however, rapidly becoming to a considerable 
extent a manufacturing nation. "We find that exterior commerce (not 
including the coasting trade) was every day bearing less and less pro- 
portion to the entire wealth and strength of the nation. The financial 
resources of the nation will, therefore, daily become weaker and weaker, 
instead of growing with the nation's growth, if we do not resort to other 
objects than our foreign commerce for taxation. But, gentlemen say, 
the moral power of the nation ought not to be neglected, and that moral 
power is inconsistent with oppressive taxes on the people. It certainly 
is with oppressive taxes, but to make them so they must be both heavy 
and unnecessary. I agree, therefore, with gentlemen in their premises, 
but not in their conclusion, that because an oppressive tax destroys the 
whole moral power of the country, there ought therefore to be no tax 
at all. Such a conclusion is certainly erroneous. Let us, said Mr. C, 
examine the question, whether a tax laid for the defence, security, 
and lasting prosperity of a country, is calculated to destroy the moral 
power of this country. If such be the fact, as indispensable as I believe 
these facts to be, I will relinquish them ; for of all the powers of the 
government, the power of a moral kind is most to be cherished. We 
had better give up all our physical power than part with that. But 
what is moral power ? The zeal of the country, and the confidence in 
the administration of its government. Will it be diminished by laying 
taxes wisely, necessarily, and moderately ? If you suppose the people 
intelligent and virtuous, it cannot be admitted. But if a majority of 
them are ignorant and vicious, then it is probable a tax laid for the most 
judicious purpose may deprive you of their confidence. The people, I 
believe, are intelligent and virtuous. The wiser then you act ; the less 
you yield to the temptation of ignoble and false security, the more 
you attract their confidence. The very existence of your government 
proves their intelligence : for, let me say to this house, that if one who 
knew nothing of this people were made acquainted with its government, 
and with the fact that it had sustained itself for thirty years, he would 



116 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1815-16. 

know at once that this was a most intelligent and virtuous people. 
Convince the people that measures are necessary and wise, and they 
will maintain them. Already they go far, very far before this house in 
energy and public spirit. If ever measures of this description become 
unpopular, it will be by speeches here. Are any willing to lull the 
people into false security ? Can they withdraw their eyes from facts 
menacing the prosperity, if not the existence, of the nation ? Are they 
willing to inspire them with sentiments injurious to their lasting peace 
and prosperity ? 

The subject is grave ; it is connected with the happiness and existence 
of the country. I do most sincerely hope that this house are the real 
agents of the people : they are brought here not to consult their ea-e 
and convenience, but their general defence and common welfare. Such 
is the language of the constitution. 

I have faithfully, in discharge of the sacred trust reposed in me by 
those for whom I act, pointed out those measures which our situation 
and relation to the rest of the world, render necessary for our security 
and lasting prosperity. They involve no doubt much expense ; they 
require considerable sacrifices on the part of the people ; but are they 
on that account to be rejected ? We are called on to choose ; on the 
one side is great ease it is true, but on the other the security of the 
country. We may dispense with the taxes; we may neglect every 
measure of precaution, and feel no immediate disaster ; but in such a 
state of things what virtuous, what wise citizen, but what must look on 
the future with dread ! I know of no situation so responsible, if prop- 
erly considered, as ours. We are charged by Providence not only 
with the happiness of this great and rising people, but in a considerable 
degree with that of the human race. We have a government of a new 
order, perfectly distinct from all which has ever preceded it. A gov- 
ernment founded on the rights of man, resting not on authority, not on 
prejudice, not on superstition, but reason. If it succeeded, as fondly 
hoped by its founders, it will be the commencement of a new era in 
human affairs. All civilized governments must in the course of time 
conform to its principles. Tims circumstanced, can you hesitate what 
course to choose ? The road that wisdom points, leads it is true up the 
steep, but leads also to security and lasting glory. No nation, that 
wants the fortitude to tread it, ought ever to aspire to greatness. Such 
ought and will certainly sink into the list of those that have done no- 
thing to be known or remembered. It is immutable ; it is in the nature 



1815-16.] TARIFF OF 1816. 117 

of things. The love of present ease and pleasure, indifference about 
the future, that fatal weakness of human nature, has never failed in in- 
dividuals or nations to sink to disgrace and ruin. On the contrary, virtue 
and wisdom, which regard the future, which spurn the temptations of 
the moment, however rugged their path, end in happiness. Such are 
the universal sentiments of all wise writers, from the didactics of the 
philosophers to the fictions of the poets. They agree that pleasure is a 
flowery path, leading off among groves and meadows, but ending in a 
gloomy and dreary wilderness ; that it is the syren's voice, which he 
who listens to is ruined ; that it is the cup of Circe, which he who drinks 
is converted into a swine. This is the language of fiction, reason teaches 
the same. It is my wish to elevate the national sentiment to that 
which every just and virtuous mind possesses. No effort is needed here 
to impel us the opposite way ; that also may be but too safely trusted 
to the frailties of our nature. This nation is in a situation similar to 
that which one of the most beautiful writers of antiquity paints Her- 
cules in his youth. He represents the hero as retiring into the wilder- 
ness to deliberate on the course of life which he ought to choose. Two 
Goddesses approach him ; one recommending to him a life of ease and 
pleasure ; the other of labor and virtue. The hero adopted the counsel 
of the latter, and his fame and glory are known to the world. May 
this nation, the youthful Hercules, possessing his form and muscles, be 
inspired with similar sentiments and follow his example ! 



Similar views upon the questions and topics consid- 
ered, were presented with equal ability and force, in 
the progress of the discussion on the tariff act. Pend- 
ing a motion made by Mr. Randolph, to strike out the 
minimum valuation on cotton goods, Mr. Calhoun said : 
" The debate heretofore on this subject, has been on 
the degree of protection which ought to be afforded to 
our cotton and woollen manufactures ; all professing to 
be friendly to those infant establishments, and to be 
willing to extend to them adequate encouragement. 
The present motion assumes a new aspect. It is intro- 
duced professedly on the ground, that manufactures 



118 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1815-16. 

ought not to receive any encouragement ; and will, in 
its operation, leave our cotton establishments exposed 
to the competition of the cotton goods of the East 
Indies, which, it is acknowledged on all sides, they are 
not capable of meeting with success, without the pro- 
viso proposed to be stricken out by the motion now 
under discussion. Till the debate assumed this new 
form, he had determined to be silent ; participating, as 
he largely did, in that general anxiety which is felt, 
after so long and laborious a session, to return to the 
bosom of our families. But on a subject of such vital 
importance, touching, as it does, the security and per- 
manent prosperity of our country, he hoped that the 
House would indulge him in a few observations. He 
regretted much his want of preparation — he meant not 
a verbal preparation, for he had ever despised such, but 
that due and mature meditation and arrangement of 
thought, which the House is entitled to on the part of 
those who occupy any portion of their time. But 
whatever his arguments might want on that account in 
weight, he hoped might be made up in the disinterested- 
ness of his situation. He was no manufacturer; he 
was not from that portion of our country supposed to 
be peculiarly interested. Coming, as he did, from the 
south, having, in common with his immediate constitu- 
ents, no interest, but in the cultivation of the soil, in 
selling its products high, and buying cheap the wants 
and conveniences of life, no motives could be attributed 
to him, but such as were disinterested. 

" He had asserted, that the subject before them was 
connected with the security of the country. It would, 
doubtless, bv some be considered a rash assertion ; but 



1815-16.] REMARKS ON THE TARIFF ACT. 119 

he conceived it to be susceptible of the clearest proof; 
and he hoped, with due attention, to establish it to the 
satisfaction of the House. 

" The security of a country mainly depends on its 
spirit and its means ; and the latter principally on ite 
monied resources. Modified as the industry of this 
country now is, combined with our peculiar situation 
and want of a naval ascendency ; whenever we have 
the misfortune to be involved in a war with a nation 
dominant on the ocean, and it is almost only with such 
we can at present be, the monied resources of the 
country, to a great extent, must fail. He took it for 
granted, that it was the duty of this body to adopt 
those measures of prudent foresight, which the event of 
war made necessary. We cannot, he presumed, be in- 
different to dangers from abroad, unless, indeed, the 
House is prepared to indulge in the phantom of eternal 
peace, which seemed to possess the dream of some of 
its members. Could such a state exist, no foresight or 
fortitude would be necessary to conduct the affairs of 
the republic ; but as it is the mere illusion of the im- 
agination ; as every people that ever has or ever will 
exist, are subjected to the vicissitudes of peace and 
war, it must ever be considered as the plain dictate oi" 
wisdom, in peace to prepare for war. What, then, let 
us consider, constitute the resources of this country, 
and what are the effects of war on them ? Commerce 
and agriculture, till lately, almost the only, still consti- 
tute the principal sources of our wealth. So long as 
these remain uninterrupted, the country prospers ; but 
war, as we are now circumstanced, is equally destruc- 
tive to both. They both depend on foreign markets ; 



120 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1815-1G. 

and our country is placed, as it regards them, in a 
situation strictly insular ; a wide ocean rolls between. 
Our commerce neither is nor can be protected, by the 
present means of the country. What, then, are the 
effects of a war with a maritime power — with Eng- 
land ? Our commerce annihilated, spreading individ- 
ual misery, and producing national poverty ; our agri- 
culture cut off from its accustomed markets, the surplus 
product of the farmer perishes on his hands ; and he 
ceases to produce, because he cannot sell. His re- 
sources are dried up, while his expenses are greatly 
increased ; as all manufactured articles, the necessaries, 
as well as the conveniences of life, rise to an extrava- 
gant price. The recent war fell with peculiar pressure 
on the growers of cotton and tobacco, and other great 
staples of the country ; and the same state of things 
will recur in the event of another, unless prevented by 
the foresight of this body. If the mere statement of 
facts did not carry conviction to any mind, as he con- 
ceives it is calculated to do, additional arguments might 
be drawn from the general nature of wealth. Neither 
agriculture, manufactures or commerce, taken separ- 
ately, is the cause of wealth ; it flows from the three 
combined ; and cannot exist without each. The 
wealth of any single nation or an individual, it is true, 
may not immediately depend on the three, but such 
wealth always presupposes their existence. Reviewed 
the words in the most enlarged sense. Without com- 
merce, industry would have no stimulus ; without 
manufactures, it would be without the means of pro- 
duction ; and without agriculture neither of the others 
can subsist. When separated entirely and perma- 



1815-16.] REMARKS ON THE TARIFF ACT. 121 

nently, they perish. War in this country produces, to 
a great extent, that effect ; and hence, the great em- 
barrassment which follows in its train. The failure 
of the wealth and resources of the nation necessarily 
involved the ruin of its finances and its currency. It 
is admitted by the most strenuous advocates, on the 
other side, that no country ought to be dependent on 
another for its means of defence ; that, at least, our 
musket and bayonet, our cannon and ball, ought to be 
of domestic manufacture. But what, he asked, is more 
necessary to the defence of a country than its currency 
and finance ? 

" Circumstanced as our country is, can these stand 
the shock of war ? Behold the effect of the late war 
on them. When our manufactures are grown to a 
certain perfection^ as they soon will under the fostering 
care of government, we will no longer experience these 
evils. The farmer will find a ready market for its sur- 
plus produce ; and what is almost of equal conse- 
quence, a certain and cheap supply of all his wants. 
His prosperity will diffuse itself to every class in the 
community'; and instead of that languor of industry 
and individual distress now incident to a state of war, 
and suspended commerce, the wealth and vigor of the 
community will not be materially impaired. The arm 
of government will be nerved, and taxes in the hour 
of danger, when essential to the independence of the 
nation, may be greatly increased ; loans, so uncertain 
and hazardous, may be less relied on ; thus situated, 
the storm may beat without, but within all will be quiet 
and safe. To give perfection to this state of things, it 
will be necessary to add, as soon as possible, a system 

6 



122 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1815-16. 

of internal improvements, and at least such an exten- 
sion of our navy, as will prevent the cutting off our 
coasting trade. The advantage of each is so striking, 
as not to require illustration, especially after the ex- 
perience of the recent war. It is thus the resources 
of this government and people would be placed beyond 
the power of a foreign war materially to impair. But 
it may be said that the derangement then experienced, 
resulted not from the cause assigned, but from the 
errors and weakness of the government. He admitted, 
that many financial blunders were committed, for the 
subject was new to us ; that the taxes were not laid 
sufficiently early, or to as great an extent as they ought 
to have been ; and that the loans were in some in- 
stances injudiciously made ; but he ventured to affirm, 
that had the greatest foresight and fortitude been ex- 
erted, the embarrassment would have been still very 
great ; and that even under the best management, the 
total derangement which was actually felt, would not 
have been postponed eighteen months, had the war so 
long continued. How could it be otherwise ? A war, 
such as this country w r as then involved in, 'in a great 
measure dries up the resources of individuals, as he 
had already proved ; and the resources of the govern- 
ment are no more than the aggregate of the surplus 
incomes of individuals called into action by a system of 
taxation. It is certainly a great political evil incident 
to the character of the industry of this country, that, 
however prosperous our situation when at peace, with 
an uninterrupted commerce, and nothing then could 
exceed it, the moment that we were involved in war 
the whole is reversed. When resources are most 



1815-16.] REMARKS ON THE TARIFF ACT. 123 

needed; when indispensable to maintain the honor; 
yes, the very existence of the nation, then they desert 
us. Our currency is also sure to experience the shock ; 
and becomes so deranged as to prevent us from calling 
out fairly whatever of means is left to the country. 
The result of a war in the present state of our naval 
power is the blockade of our coast, and consequent 
destruction of our trade. The wants and habits of 
the country, founded on the use of foreign articles, 
must be gratified ; importation to a certain extent con- 
tinues, through the policy of the enemy, or unlawful 
traffic ; the exportation of our bulky articles is pre- 
vented too, the specie of the country is drawn to pay 
the balance perpetually accumulating against us ; and 
the result is a total derangement of the currency. 

" To this distressing state of things there were two 
remedies, and only two; one in our power immediately, 
the other requiring much time and exertion ; but both 
constituting, in his opinion, the essential policy of this 
country ; he meant the navy, and domestic manufac- 
tures. By the former, we could open the way to our 
markets ; by the latter we bring them from beyond the 
ocean, and naturalize them. Had we the means of at- 
taining an immediate naval ascendency, he acknowl- 
edged that the policy recommended by this bill, would 
be very questionable ; but as that is not the fact — as it 
is a period remote, with any exertion, and will be 
probably more so, from that relaxation of exertion, so 
natural in peace, when necessity is not felt, it became 
the duty of this house to resort, to a considerable ex- 
tent, at least as far as is proposed, to the only remain- 
ing remedy. But to this it has been objected, that the 



124 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1815-16. 

country is not prepared, and that the result of our 
premature exertion would be to bring distress on it, 
without effecting the intended object. Were it so, 
however urgent the reasons in its favor, we ought to 
desist, as it is folly to oppose the laws of necessity. 
But he could not for a moment yield to the assertion ; 
on the contrary, he firmlv believed that the country is 
prepared, even to maturity, for the introduction of 
manufactures. We have abundance of resources, and 
things naturally tend at this moment in that direction. 
A prosperous commerce has poured an immense amount 
of commercial capital into this country. This capital 
has, till lately, found occupation in commerce ; but 
that state of the world which transferred it to this 
country, and gave it active employment, has passed 
away, never to return. Where shall we now find full 
employment for our prodigious amount of tonnage ; 
where markets for the numerous and abundant pro- 
ducts of our country ? This great body of active cap- 
ital, which for the moment has found sufficient employ- 
ment in supplying our markets, exhausted by the war, 
and measures preceding it, must find a new direction ; 
it will not be idle. What channel can it take, but that 
of manufactures ? This, if things continue as they 
are, will be its direction. It will introduce a new era 
in our affairs, in many respects highly advantageous, 
and ought to be countenanced bv the government. Be- 
sides, we have already surmounted the greatest diffi- 
culty that has ever been found in undertakings of this 
kind. The cotton and woollen manufactures are not 
to be introduced — they are already introduced to a 
great extent ; freeing us entirely from the hazards, and, 



1815-16.] REMARKS ON THE TARIFF ACT. 125 

in a great measure, the sacrifices experienced in giving 
the capital of the country a new direction. The re- 
strictive measures and the war, though not intended for 
that purpose, have, by the necessary operation of 
things, turned a large amount of capital to this new 
branch of industry. He had often heard it said, both 
in and out of Congress, that this effect alone would in- 
demnify the country for all of its losses. So high was 
this tone of feeling, when the want of these establish- 
ments was practically felt, that he remembered, dur- 
ing the w r ar, when some question was agitated respect- 
ing the introduction of foreign goods, that many then 
opposed it on the ground of injuring our manufac- 
tures. He then said, that war alone furnished suf- 
ficient stimulus, and perhaps too much, as it would 
make their growth unnaturally rapid ; but, that on the 
return of peace, it would then be time to show our 
affection for them. He at that time did not expect an 
apathy and aversion to the extent which is now seen. 
But it will no doubt be said, if they are so far estab- 
lished, and if the situation of the country is so favor- 
able to their growth, where is the necessity of affording 
them protection ? It is to put them beyond the reach 
of contingency. Besides, capital is not yet, and can- 
not, for some time, be adjusted to the new state of 
things. There is, in fact, from the operation of tem- 
porary causes, a great pressure on these establishments. 
They had extended so rapidly during the late war, that 
many, he feared, were without the requisite surplus 
capital, or skill, to meet the present crisis. Should such 
prove to be the fact, it would give a back set, and 
might, to a great extent, endanger their ultimate sue- 



126 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1815-16. 

cess. Should the present owners be ruined, and the 
workmen dispersed and turn to other pursuits, the 
country would sustain a great loss. Such would, no 
doubt, be the fact to a considerable extent, if not pro- 
tected. Besides, circumstances, if we act with wis- 
dom, are favorable to attract to our country much skill 
and industry. The country in Europe, having the 
most skilful workmen, is broken up. It is to us, if 
wisely used, more valuable than the repeal of the Edict 
of Nantes was to England. She had the prudence to 
profit by it — let us not discover less political sagacity. 
Afford to ingenuity and industry immediate and ample 
protection, and they will not fail to give a preference 
to this free and happy country. 

" It has been objected to this bill, that it will injure 
our marine, and consequently impair our naval strength. 
How far it is fairly liable to this charge, he was not 
prepared to say. He hoped and believed, it would not, 
at least to any alarming extent, have that effect imme- 
diately ; and he firmly believed, that its lasting opera- 
tion would be highly beneficial to our commerce. The 
trade to the East Indies would certainly be much 
affected ; but it was stated in debate, that the whole 
of that trade employed but six hundred sailors. But 
whatever might be the loss in this, or other branches 
of our foreign commerce, he trusted it would be amply 
compensated in our coasting trade ; a branch of navi- 
gation wholly in our own hands. It has at all times 
employed a great amount of tonnage, something more 
he believed than one third of the whole ; nor is it liable 
to the imputation thrown out by a member from North 
Carolina, (Mr. Gaston) that it produced inferior sailors. 



1815-16.] REMARKS ON THE TARIFF ACT, 127 

It required long and dangerous voyages ; and if his in- 
formation was correct, no branch of trade made better 
or more skilful seamen. The fact that it is wholly in 
our own hands, is a very important one, while every 
branch of our foreign trade must suffer from competi- 
tion with other nations. Other objections of a political 
character were made to the encouragement of manu- 
factures. It is said they destroy the moral and physi- 
cal power of the people. This might formerly have 
been true to a considerable extent, before the perfec- 
tion of machinery, and when the success of the manu- 
factures depended on the minute sub-division of labor. 
At that time it required a large portion of the popula- 
tion of a country to be engaged in them ; and every 
minute sub-division of labor is undoubtedly unfavorable 
to the intellect ; but the great perfection of machinery 
has in a considerable degree obviated these objections. 
In fact it has been stated that manufacturing districts 
in England furnish the greatest number of recruits to 
her army, and that, as soldiers, they are not materially 
inferior to the rest of her population. It has been 
further asserted that manufactures are the fruitful 
cause of pauperism ; and England has been referred 
to as furnishing conclusive evidence of its truth. For 
his part, he could perceive no such tendency in them, 
but the exact contrary, as they furnished new stimulus 
and means of subsistence to the laboring classes of 
the community. We ought not to look to the cotton 
and woollen establishments of Great Britain for the 
prodigious numbers of poor with which her population 
was disgraced. Causes much more efficient exist. 
Her poor laws and statutes regulating the price of labor, 



128 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1815-16. 

with heavy taxes, were the real causes. But if it must 
be so, if the mere fact that England manufactured 
more than any other country, explained the cause of 
her having more beggars, it is just as reasonable to 
refer her courage, spirit, and all her masculine virtues, 
in which she excels all other nations, with a single ex- 
ception; he meant our own ; in which we might with- 
out vanity challenge a preeminence. Another objec- 
tion had been made, which he must acknowledge was 
better founded, that capital employed in manfacturing 
produced a greater dependence on the part of the em- 
ployed, than in commerce, navigation, or agriculture. 
It is certainly an evil and to be regretted ; but he did 
not think it a decisive objection to the system ; espe- 
cially when it had incidental political advantages which 
in his opinion more than counterpoised it. It produced 
an interest strictlv American, as much so as agricul- 
ture ; in which it had the decided advantage of com- 
merce or navigation. The country will from this de- 
rive much advantage. Again, it is calculated to bind 
Jogether more closely our widely-spread republic. It 
will greatly increase our mutual dependence and inter- 
course ; and will as a necessary consequence, excite 
an increased attention to internal improvement, a sub- 
ject every way so intimately connected with the ulti- 
mate attainment of national strength and the perfection 
of our political institutions. He regarded the fact 
that it would make the parts adhere more closely, that 
it would form a new and most powerful cement, far 
out-weighing any political objections that might be 
urged against the system. In his opinion the liberty 
and the union of this country were inseparably 



1815-16.] THIS SPEECH UNPREMEDITATED. 129 

united! That as the destruction of the latter would 
most certainly involve the former; so its maintenance 
will with equal certainty preserve it. He did not speak 
lightly. He had often and long revolved it. in his 
mind ; and he had critically examined into the causes 
that destroyed the liberty of other states. There are 
none that apply to us, or apply with a force to alarm. 
The basis of our republic is too broad and its structure 
too strong, to be shaken by them. Its extension and 
organization will be found to afford effectual security 
against their operation; but let it be deeply impressed 
on the heart of this house and country, that while they 
guarded against the old they exposed us to a new and 
terrible danger, disunion. This single word compre- 
hended almost the sum of our political dangers; and 
against it we ought to be perpetually guarded." 

In connection with the foregoing remarks of Mr. Cal- 
houn on the tariff act, it should be mentioned, that he 
had no present intention of taking part in the debate, 
when they were delivered. His speech was an unpre- 
meditated effort, made on the spur of the occasion, 
upon the particular and urgent request of his friend 
Mr. Ingham, of Pennsylvania. The tariff bill was 
then under discussion, and the House had fallen into 
confusion. Mr. Calhoun was not a frequent speaker, 
but was always listened to with great deference and 
respect. He w r as therefore entreated to make some 
remarks, that order and tranquillity might be restored. 
He had been engaged in writing at his desk, and had 
made no preparation for the debate. Moreover, his 
time and attention had been so completely taken up 
with his appropriate duties on the currency committee, 



130 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1815-16. 

that he had reflected but little on the merits of the 
tariff question. His remarks were, consequently, of a 
general character, and only designed to present the 
leading and more striking considerations in favor of 
the proposed law. 

It is undoubtedly true that this subject was a new 
one, in so far as the protective policy was concerned — 
for previous tariff acts had been based on revenue 
principles — and if Mr. Calhoun erred in giving the 
measure his support, it must be attributed to that fact. 
But he would never himself admit, that there was any- 
thing inconsistent in his course on this occasion, as 
contrasted with his subsequent action; and in his cele- 
brated speech on the Force Bill, in 1S32, he repelled 
the charge which had been made against him, with 
much warmth. 

The political aspect of the tariff question in 181 G, 
was, indeed, very different from what it afterward be- 
came. The interests affected by the law that year, 
and the circumstances attending its passage, were 
peculiar. From 1792 to 1805, the United States en- 
joyed a degree of commercial prosperity without par- 
allel in their history. The desolating wars in Europe, 
and the conflict with Great Britain, put an end to this 
era of successful commerce, and the capital which had 
been so profitably employed was now driven into other 
channels. Manufacturing establishments sprung up in 
the northern and eastern states, and under the influ- 
ence of the non-intercourse policy they were highly 
prosperous. But when peace came, and our markets 
were again opened to foreign importations, it was not 
expected by any one, that they would be able to sus- 

6* 



1815-16.] PRINCIPLE OF THE LAW. 131 

tain themselves against the competition which they 
would be obliged to encounter. It was then urged, 
and with a great deal of plausibility, that the infant 
manufactures of the country, hitherto fostered and sus- 
tained by the existence of the war, were deserving of 
encouragement — not -protection, be it remembered — 
and that this could be afforded in no better way than 
by a tariff law enacted for the purpose of raising the 
revenue needed for the support of the government. 

This idea of encouraging an important interest 
while in its infancy, and until it became strong enough 
to support itself, which, it was said, it would be able to 
do in ten or twelve years, was one likely to have its 
full weight with Mr. Calhoun, who was yet compara- 
tively a young man, full of hope for himself and his 
country, enthusiastic and patriotic. But it will be seen 
from his speech on the direct tax, and his remarks on 
the tariff bill, that other considerations connected with 
the state of the country, its future prosperity, and its 
defence against foreign powers, were of paramount im- 
portance with him. The leading governments of 
Europe had banded together to put down the popular 
impulses which threatened the permanency of mon- 
archical institutions, and Legitimacy was now in the 
ascendant. What further projects might be contem- 
plated by the Holy Alliance, were left solely to conjec- 
ture ; but it was advisable to be prepared for any 
fortune. 

The lessons of experience were not to be despised, 
and a regard for the safety of the Union imperatively 
demanded that she should be placed in a condition of 
defence, and of entire independence of foreign influ- 



132 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1815-16. 

ences. The former, as Mr. Calhoun contended, might 
be secured, by the augmentation of the army and navy 
and the fortification of the sea-coast, and the latter, by 
increasing the prosperity and wealth of the people, to 
which end a sound currency and the encouragement 
of domestic interests were essential. 

Protection, to a certain but limited extent, was af- 
forded by the law of 1816, but it cannot be denied that 
the revenue idea was the controlling one, inasmuch as 
the average rate of duties imposed by the act barely 
exceeded thirty per cent. This is further made evi- 
dent by the fact, that the sum of ten millions of dol- 
lars was appropriated annually to the sinking fund, pro- 
vided for the payment of the public debt; and it was 
also anticipated, that there would be a still further ex- 
cess of revenue, to be carried to the same object. If 
the measure, then, was not mainly of a revenue char- 
acter, it would have been the height of folly to have 
indulged any such expectations ; for it is undoubtedly 
true, as a general rule, that the duties realized from a 
high protective tariff are much less in amount than 
those afforded by a low, or strictly revenue tariff. 

There were two features of the act of 1816, and 
only two, which trespassed beyond the revenue limit. 
Most of the leading objects of protection were subject 
to a duty of only twenty per cent. ; but the duty on 
iron was first fixed at seventy-five cents the hundred 
weight, and afterward reduced to forty-five cents ; and 
the minimum principle was introduced in establishing 
the high duties on coarse cotton. These were great 
errors, as Mr. Calhoun subsequently admitted.* Leav- 

* Speech against the Force Bill. 



1815-16.] ERRORS. 133 

ing them out of view, the law was not essentially dif- 
ferent, in any of its details, from what it would have 
been had not a single manufacturing establishment ex- 
isted on this side of the Atlantic. 

Mr. Calhoun never denied the power of Congress to 
impose duties for revenue, nor that the favorable effects 
of such imposition on the manufacturing interest might 
be properly taken into consideration in the enactment 
of tariff laws. Such were his opinions in 1816, and 
they were never changed at any period of his life. 
Coming from a state whose great staples were not all 
required for home consumption, but were driven in part 
to seek a foreign market, where the prices realised for 
the surplus governed the value of the whole, the posi- 
tion which he occupied on the tariff question, and 
which South Carolina held through him, was a most 
magnanimous one. When the manufacturing interest 
was in its infancy he was disposed to encourage it, but 
when he saw it becoming a powerful monopoly, daily 
waxing stronger and stronger, and like the banyan tree 
extending itself in every direction, and overshadowing 
the land whose nourishing properties it exhausted, — ■ 
when he beheld a powerful party in the country arrayed 
on its side, and the fidelity of the other to republican 
principles not always proof against temptation, — he felt 
bound to raise his voice in remonstrance ; but those 
who are sincere in the opinion that he committed 
errors then, should not forget any of the circumstances, 
— they should remember the cause and the provocation. 

As Mr. Calhoun had ever been one of the most 
prominent advocates of the improvement of the army, 
as well in its discipline as in its materiel, he was a 



134 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1815-16. 

warm friend to the military academy, and with Mr. 
Forsyth and others, successfully resisted an attempt 
made at this session to reduce the number of 'cadets. 
He maintained that active and good soldiers might 
easily be made out of any portion of the population of 
the United States, but in order to accomplish this, the 
more general diffusion of military science was neces- 
sary, for without it the militia would be totally ineffi- 
cient, and "but a rabble without discipline." 

During the session of 1815-16, also, a bill was passed 
changing the mode of compensation of members of 
Congress, from the per diem allowance to an annual 
salary of fifteen hundred dollars. Although this meas- 
ure was probably as fair and as just a one as could 
have been devised, it proved to be unpopular with the 
people all over the Union ; and in a great majority of 
cases, those members who had voted for it were not 
again returned by their constituents. Mr. Calhoun 
had supported the bill throughout, and on his return 
home he found the current setting strongly against him. 
His uncle, Joseph Calhoun, who resided in Abbeville, 
and General William Butler, of Edgefield, both of 
whom had previously represented his district, con- 
demned his course in decided terms, and the latter 
offered himself as a candidate against him. Indeed, 
the prevailing opinion was so decidedly hostile, that 
very few of his friends had sufficient courage to face 
the storm of censure and openly to vindicate his vote. 

Many thought it was not advisable for him to subject 
himself to a public expression of the displeasure of his 
constituents, by offering for reelection. Others urged 
him to apologize for his course, and to appeal to the 



1816-17.] HIS RE-ELECTION. 135 

kind feelings of those whom he had represented, to 
overlook this, his single error, during a service of five 

J O 7 O 

years. To one and all he returned for answer, that he 
had supported the compensation act because he thought 
it was right, and he only asked that his constituents 
would allow him an opportunity to defend himself, and 
grant him a fair hearing. The request was too just a 
one to be denied. A day was fixed in each of the dis- 
tricts of Abbeville and Edgefield, for Mr. Calhoun to 
address the people at the court-houses. The ties be- 
tween them and the able and talented representative to 
whom they had been so long and so warmly attached, 
were far too strong to be lightly severed, and they 
cheerfull v came together in great numbers to hear what 
he had to say in his defence. Instead of apologizing 
for his course, or appealing to their feelings and sym- 
pathies, he manfully defended his vote, and so power- 
ful and convincing were his arguments that he was 
triumphantly reelected. 

Such is always the reward of fidelity, honesty, and 
independence, in the legislator. Misrepresentation and 
calumny may meet with temporary success ; he may 
be prostrated for a time ; but his day of triumph will 
surely come, when his virtues will shine more brightly 
than ever, as they burst forth from the clouds which 
had obscured their effulgence. 

At the ensuing session of Congress, — in 1816-17, — 
a bill repealing the compensation act was introduced; 
but Mr. Calhoun still refused to yield to the clamor 
which had been raised against the law. He again dis- 
cussed the merits of the question, and defended the 
policy and justice of the measure. But the majority 



136 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1816-17. 

could not withstand the tempest of popular indigna- 
tion ; they did not attempt to disabuse the public mind 
of the false impressions under which it labored, but 
hastened to conciliate their constituents by erasing the 
unfortunate enactment from the statute-book. So con- 
spicuous was Mr. Calhoun on this occasion, for his un- 
compromising integrity and the independence of his 
course, that Mr. Grosvenor, a federal member from 
New York, who had had a personal difference with the 
former in one of the secret sessions during the war 
and was not on speaking terms with him, took occasion 
to say in the course of the debate on the repeal bill, 
that "he had heard, with peculiar satisfaction, the able, 
manly, and constitutional speech of the gentleman 
from South Carolina" (Mr. Calhoun). " I will not be 
restrained," he added. " No barrier shall exist which 
I will not leap over, for the purpose of offering to that 
gentleman my thanks for the judicious, independent, 
and national course which he has pursued in this 
House for the last two years, and particularly upon the 
subject now before us. Let the honorable gentleman 
continue with the same manly independence, aloof 
from party views and local prejudices, to pursue the 
great interests of his country, and fulfil the high des- 
tiny for which it is manifest he was born. The buzz 
of popular applause may not cheer him on his way, but 
he will inevitably arrive at a high and happy elevation 
in the view of his country and the world." 

Among the other subjects connected with the de- 
fence and prosperity of the country, which Mr. Cal- 
houn considered in his speech on the direct tax, was 
that of internal improvements. In common with most 



1816-17.] INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 1ST 

of the younger members of the republican party at 
that day, he was favorably impressed in behalf of the 
construction of such works, and thought the power of 
Congress over the subject was embraced in that " to 
lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to 
pay the debts and provide for the common defence and 
general welfare/' Subsequent reflection and experi- 
ence taught him his error, when his opinions were 
promptly corrected; but in 1816 he expressed himself 
in favor of the establishment of roads and opening 
canals in various parts of the country, for the con- 
venience of our widely-dispersed population, and of 
the construction of military roads, the want of which 
for the transportation of munitions of war and supplies, 
during the war of 1812, had been attended with such 
disastrous consequences. 

In his annual message at the first session of Con- 
gress after the close of the war, Mr. Madison called 
the attention of members to the subject of internal im- 
provements, and recommended Congress to exercise all 
its constitutional powers in the premises, and if they 
were found inadequate, to take the necessary steps to 
amend the constitution. Acting in accordance with 
what he supposed to be the views and wishes of the 
President, Mr. Calhoun introduced a resolution into 
the House, on the 16th of December, 1816, directing 
that a committee should be appointed to inquire into 
the expediency of setting apart the bonus paid to the 
United States by the national bank, and the net annual 
profits on their stock, as a permanent fund for internal 
improvements. The resolution was adopted and the 
committee appointed — Mr, Calhoun being its chairman, 



138 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1816-17. 

On the 23rd instant he reported a bill which he had 
prepared, setting apart and pledging the bonus and 
dividends as contemplated by the resolution. But little 
discussion was had on the bill, and after being amended, 
on motion of Mr. Pickering, so as to require the ob- 
taining of the assent of a state to the construction of 
roads or canals within its territorial limits, it was 
passed by a small majority. In the Senate it was also 
sustained by a majority vote, and was sent to the 
President. 

Although the bill of Mr. Calhoun did not claim for 
Congress the power to construct works of internal 
improvement within the states, or pretend in any way 
to define the power, it was undoubtedly taken for 
granted. In his speech on the bill, Mr. Calhoun did 
not examine the constitutional question, notwithstand- 
ing he was urged to do so, but contented himself with 
saying that he believed the power existed, though he 
was not prepared to say to what extent. The bill was 
laid before the President a few days prior to the ad- 
journment of Congress and the close of his administra- 
tion, and when Mr. Calhoun called to take his leave, 
the latter learned for the first time, much to his regret 
and chagrin, that it did not meet with the approbation 
of the executive. On the 3rd day of March, 1817, the 
bill was returned to the House with the objections of 
the President, based mainly upon the want of power in 
Congress until the constitution was amended as he had 
suggested. The bill was now lost, — not two thirds of 
the members voting in its favor. Mr. Calhoun, how- 
ever, with Mr. Forsyth, and his colleague, Mr. Huger, 
still supported the measure. 



1816-17.] mr. calhoun's bill. 139 

No actual appropriation of money was made by this 
bill, nor were any particular works of internal improve- 
ment authorized to be constructed, yet the constitu- 
tional principle was probably involved in it, at least 
indirectly. The views of Mr. Calhoun upon the ques- 
tion subsequently underwent a material change, as the 
reader will discover. 



CHAPTER VI. 

Expiration of Lis Service in the House of Representatives — Appointed 
Secretary of War — Management of the Affairs of the Department — 
Financial System — Other Improvements introduced — Reorganization 
of the Army — System of Fortifications — Medical Statistics — Missouri 
Compromise— Tariff Act of 1824 — Internal Improvements. 

With the 3rd day of March, 1817, closed the period 
of Mr. Calhoun's service in the popular branch of Con- 
gress. The trust confided to him was now returned to 
those whom he had represented — in such a- spirit of 
devotion to their interests, and with such credit to him- 
self, — not diminished or impaired in aught, but rendered 
more valuable by the fidelity with which it had been 
guarded, and the enviable reputation he had won in its 
defence. He had been chosen for another term, but at 
the time of his reelection he did not anticipate the 
honors which Fortune had in store for him. 

Although he had been in Congress but for the short 
period of six years, his character was known and under- 
stood in every part of the country. His friends and 
admirers were numerous, and the new President en- 
tertained a high opinion of his talents and integrity. 
" Shortly before the meeting of Congress at the next 
session, [in December, 1817,] he received an invitation 
from Mr. Monroe to take a place in his cabinet as Sec- 
retary of War.* It was unsolicited and unexpected. 

* Mr. Calhoun was appointed in the place of Governor Shelby, of 



1817-25.] APPOINTED SECRETARY OF WAR. 141 

His friends, with some exceptions, advised against his 
acceptance, on the ground that Congress was the proper 
theatre for his talents ; Mr. Lowndes concurred in this 
advice, and, among other reasons, urged that his im- 
provement in speaking had been such that he was de- 
sirous to see the degree of eminence he w T ould reach 
by practice. Indeed, the prevailing opinion at the time 
was, that his talent lay more in the power of thought 
than action. His great powers of analysis and gener- 
alization were calculated to make the impression, which 
was not uncommon at that time, that his mind was 
more metaphysical than practical, and that he would 
lose reputation in taking charge of a department, 
especially one in a state of such disorder and confusion 
as the war department was then. The reasons assigned 
by his friends served but to confirm Mr. Calhoun in 
the opinion that he ought to accept. He believed the 
impression of his friends was erroneous as to the char- 
acter of his mind ; but if not, if his powers lay rather 
in thinking and speaking than in execution, it was but 
the more necessary he should exercise them in the lat- 
ter, and thereby strengthen them where they were 
naturally the weakest. He also believed that he could 
render more service to the country in reforming that 
great disbursing department of government, admitted 
to be in a state of much disorder, than he could possi- 
bly do by continuing in Congress, where most of the 
great questions growing out of a return to a state of 
peace had been discussed and settled. Under the in- 
fluence of these motives, he accepted the proffered ap- 

Kentucky, who had declined the appointment tendered to him by Mr. 
Monroe. 



142 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1817-25. 

pointment, and entered on the duties of the department 
early in December, 1817. 

" Thus, after six years of distinguished services in 
Congress, during which Mr. Calhoun bore a prominent 
and efficient part in originating and supporting all the 
measures necessary to carry the country through one 
of the most trying and difficult periods of its existence, 
and had displayed throughout great ability as a legis- 
lator and a speaker, we find him in a new scene, where 
his talents for business and administration for the first 
time are to be tried. He took possession of his depart- 
ment at the most unfavorable period. Congress was 
in session, when much of the time of the secretary is 
necessarily occupied in meeting the various calls for 
information from the two Houses, and attending to the 
personal application of the members on the business of 
their constituents. Mr. Graham, the chief clerk, an 
able and experienced officer, retired shortly afterward, 
and a new and totally inexperienced successor had to 
be appointed in his place. The department was almost 
literally without organization, and everything in a state 
of confusion. Mr. Calhoun had paid but little atten- 
tion to military subjects in any of their various 
branches. He had never read a treatise on the sub- 
ject, except a small volume on the Staff. 

" In this absence of information, he determined at 
once to do as little as possible at first, and to be a good 
listener and a close observer till he could form a just 
conception of the actual state of the department and 
what was necessary to be done. Acting on this pru- 
dent rule, he heard all and observed everything, and 
reflected on and digested all that he heard and saw. 



1817-25.] NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS- 143 

In less than three months he became so well acquainted 
with the state of the department, and what was re- 
quired to be done, that he drew up himself, without 
consultation, the bill for organizing it on the bureau 

CD <-J 

principle, and succeeded in getting it through Congress 
against a formidable opposition, who denounced it as 
wild and impracticable. But, on the contrary, this 
organization has been proved to be so perfect, that it 
has remained unchanged through all the vicissitudes 
and numerous changes of parties till this time, a period 
of twenty-five years. 

"But that was only the first step. The most perfect 
system is of little value without able and faithful 
officers to carry it into execution. The President, 
under his advice, selected to fill the several bureaus 
such officers as had the confidence of the army for 
ability and integrity, and possessing an aptitude of tal- 
ent for the service of the bureau for which they were 
respectively selected. With each of these Mr. Cal- 
houn associated a junior officer, having like qualifica- 
tions, for his assistant. But, to give effect to the svs- 
tern, one thing was still wanting — a code of rules for 
the department and each of its bureaus, in order to 
give uniformity, consistency, efficacy, and stability to 
the whole. These he prepared, with the assistance of 
the heads of the respective bureaus, under the pro- 
vision of the bill for the organization of the depart- 
ment, which gave the secretary the power to establish 
rules not inconsistent with existing laws. They form 
a volume of considerable size, which, like the act itself, 
remains substantially the same, though, it is to be 
feared, too often neglected in practice by some of his 



144 . JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN'. [1817-25. 

successors. AH this was completed in the course of a 
few months after the passage of the act, and the sys- 
tem put into active operation. It worked without 
a jar. 

"In a short time its fruits began to show themselves 
in the increased efficiency of the department and the 
correction of abuses, many of which were of long stand- 
ing. To trace his acts through the period of more 
than seven years, during which Mr. Calhoun remained 
in the war-office, would be tedious, and occupy more 
space than the object of this sketch would justify. 
The results, which, after all, are the best tests of the 
system and the efficiency of an administration, must be 
taken as a substitute. Suffice it, then, to say, that 
when he came into office, he found it in a state of 
chaos, and left it, even in the opinion of opponents, in 
complete organization and order. An officer of high 
standing and a competent judge pronounced it the most 
perfectly organized and efficient military establishment 
for its size in the world. He found it with upward of 
$40 ; 000 ; 000 of unsettled accounts, many of them of 
long standing, going back almost to the origin of the 
government, and he reduced them to less than three 
millions, which consisted, for the most part, of losses, 
and accounts that never can be settled. He prevented 
all current accumulation, by a prompt and rigid en- 
forcement of accountability; so much so, that he was 
enabled to report to Congress in 1823, that "of the 
entire amount of money drawn from the treasury in 
1822 for military service, including pensions amount- 
ing to $4,571,961 94, although it passed through the 
hands of two hundred and ninety-one disbursing officers, 



1817-25.] MANAGEMENT OF DEPARTMENT. 145 

there has not been a single defalcation, nor the loss of 
a single cent to the government." He found the army 
proper, including the Military Academy, costing an- 
nually more than $451 per man, including officers, pro- 
fessors, and cadets, and he left the cost less than $287 ; 
or, to do more exact justice to his economy, he dimin- 
ished such parts of the cost per man as were suscepti- 
ble of reduction by an efficient administration, exclud- 
ing pay and such parts as were fixed in moneyed 
compensation by law, from $299 to $150. All this 
was effected by wise reforms, and not by parsimony 
(for he was liberal, as many supposed, to a fault) in the 
quality and quantity of the supplies, and not by a fall 
of prices ; for in making the calculation, allowance is 
made for the fall or rise of prices on every article of 
supply. The gross saving on the army was $1,300,000 
annually, in an expenditure which reached $4,000,000 
when he came into the department. This does not in- 
clude the other branches of service, the ordnance, the 
engineer and Indian bureaus, in all of which a like 
rigid economy and accountability were introduced, 
with similar results in saving to the government. 

" These great improvements were made under ad- 
verse circumstances. Party excitement ran high dur- 
ing the period, and Mr. Calhoun came in for his full 
share of opposition and misrepresentation, which may 
be explained by the fact that his name had been pre- 
sented as a candidate for the presidency. He was 
often thwarted in his views and defeated in his meas- 
ures, and was made for years the subject of almost in- 
cessant attacks in Congress, against which he had to 
defend himself, but with such complete success, finally, 



146 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1817-25. 

as to silence his assailants. They had been kept con- 
stantly informed of every movement in his department 
susceptible of misconstruction or of being turned 
against him. One of the representatives, who boarded 
in the same house with his principal assailant, offered 
to disclose to Mr. Calhoun the channel through which 
his opponents in Congress derived the information on 
which they based their attacks. Mr. Calhoun declined 
to receive it. He said he did not object that any act 
of the department should be known to his bitterest 
enemies : that he thought well of all about him, and 
did not desire to change his opinion ; and all that he 
regretted was, that if there was any one near him who 
desired to communicate anything to any member, he 
did not ask for his permission, which he would freely 
have given. He felt conscious he was doing his duty, 
and dreaded no attack. In fact, he felt no wish that 
these attacks should be discontinued. He knew how 
difficult it w T as to reform long-standing and inveterate 
abuses, and he used the assaults on the department and 
the army as the means of reconciling the officers, who 
might be profiting by them, to the measures he had 
adopted for their correction, and to enlist them heartily 
in cooperating with him in their correction, as the 
most certain means of saving the establishment and 
themselves. To this cause, and to the strong sense 
of justice which he exhibited on all occasions, by 
the decided support he gave to all who did their duty, 
and his no less decided discharge of his duty against 
all who neglected or omitted it, is to be attributed the 
fact that he carried through so thorough a reform, 
where there was so much disorder and abuse, with a 



1817-25.] MANAGEMENT OF DEPARTMENT. 147 

popularity constantly increasing with the army. Never 
did a secretary leave a department with more popu- 
larity or a greater degree of attachment and devotion 
on the part of those connected with it than he did. 

" In addition to the ordinary duties of the depart- 
ment, he made many and able reports on the subject of 
our Indian affairs, on the reduction of the army, on in- 
ternal improvements, and others. He revived the Mili- 
tary Academy, which he found in a very disordered 
state, and left it in great perfection ; he caused a minute 
and accurate survey to be made of the military frontier, 
inland and maritime, and projected, through an able 
board of engineers, a plan for their defence. In con- 
formity with this plan, he commenced a system of forti- 
fication, and made great progress in its execution, and 
he established a cordon of military posts from the lakes 
around our north-western and south-western frontiers to 
the Gulf of Mexico. 

" Another measure remains to be noticed, which will 
be regarded in after-times as one of the most striking 
and useful, although it has heretofore attracted much 
less attention than it deserves. In organizing the medi- 
cal department, Mr. Calhoun, with those enlarged views 
and devotion to science which have ever characterized 
him, directed the surgeons at all the military posts ex- 
tending over our vast country, to report accurately to 
the surgeon-general at Washington every case of 
disease, its character, its treatment, and the result, and 
also to keep a minute register of the weather, the tem- 
perature, the moisture, and the winds, to be reported in 
like manner to the surgeon-general. To enable them 
to comply with the order, he directed the surgeons at 



148 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1817-25. 

the various posts to be furnished with thermometers, 
barometers, and hygrometers, and^ the surgeon-general 
from time to time to publish the result of their observa- 
tions in condensed reports, which were continued dur- 
ing the time he remained in the war department. The 
result has been, a mass of valuable facts, connected 
with the diseases t and the climate of our widely-ex- 
tended country, collected through the long period of 
nearly a quarter of a century."* 

The important facts thus obtained under the auspices 
of Mr. Calhoun, were afterward collected and arranged 
by the late Dr. Samuel Forry, then of the United States 
Army, and, together with other materials, published by 
him in three different works, entitled " Medical Statis- 
tics of the United States," " The Climate of the United 
States and its Endemic Influences," and " Meteorology." 
Besides rendering his aid and assistance in securing 
these valuable contributions to the cause of science, 
Mr. Calhoun was one of the earliest friends and advo- 
cates of that great national enterprise — the coast sur- 
vey — originated during the administration of Mr. 
Monroe. He laid the foundation, too, of the extensive 
gallery of Indian portraits which long adorned the walls 
of the War office, and constitute now one of the most 
attractive and interesting ornaments of the halls of the 
National Institute. 

In every branch of his duties as the presiding officer 
of the war department, Mr. Calhoun did the state good 
service ; and the influence of his clear mind, his pre- 
cision and love of order, his punctuality and integrity, 
was felt by all his subordinate officers and agents. The 
* Memoir of Mr. Calhoun, 1843. 



1817-25.] IMPROVEMENTS INTRODUCED BY HIM. 149 

improvements which he introduced were not evanescent 
in their character, nor of temporary duration ; but they 
were designed to be permanent, and the sequel proved 
them such in reality. His purgation of the Augean 
stable was complete. Unsettled accounts were no 
longer left to accumulate till the halls of Congress echoed 
and reechoed with the clamors of the public creditor; 
the reorganization of the army was as admirable in prac- 
tice as in theory ; the system of fortifications which he 
proposed, maritime as well as frontier, afforded all the 
protection needed or desired ; and the removal of the 
Indians beyond the Mississippi, which he warmly rec- 
ommended, as experience has demonstrated, was a 
boon and a blessing to the red men of the forest. The 
system of financial administration which he first estab- 
lished, is still in operation — daily bearing witness to the 
practical talents of the great mind that originated it. So 
perfect has it been found, that notwithstanding the im- 
mense amount of money disbursed by the department 
since he was at its head, exceeding two hundred millions 
of dollars, no losses of any importance have happened.* 
From his position as a member of the cabinet, and 
the necessity of devoting his whole time to the perform- 
ance of his official duties, Mr. Calhoun had little leisure, 
as he had not much inclination, for participating in the 
strifes and contests upon the various political questions 
agitated during the administration of Mr. Monroe. 
Though averse to the legislation by Congress on the 
subject of domestic slavery, he approved of the course 
of Mr. Monroe in regard to the Missouri compromise, 

* From 1821 to 1836, there was no loss on an expenditure of one 
hundred millions, 



150 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1817-25. 

viewing it strictly as a measure of conciliation and 
peace ; but his opinions on the subject were afterwards 
changed. 

The tariff question was again presented under this 
administration. The act of 1816 contemplated a re- 
duction of duties in 1819. The manufacturing interest 
had increased to the proportions and stature of a giant, 
but like the plant forced in a hothouse, it still required 
some artificial stimulus. In 1818, the friends of a high 
protective tariff beset Congress with their applications 
for an increase of duties. The profits of the manufac- 
turers were large, but like the daughters of the horse- 
leech, they continued to cry "give! give!" In 1819 
they succeeded in procuring the appointment of a com- 
mittee on manufactures. This was a decided innova- 
tion, as previous to that time the subject had been en- 
tirely under the control of the appropriate revenue com- 
mittee. Mr. Monroe, against the advice of Mr. Calhoun, 
was finally induced to recommend additional encourage- 
ment, and at length the act of 1824, which established 
an average rate of duties of about thirty-eight per cent, 
was passed. This bill originated with the iron manu- 
facturers of Pennsylvania and the other middle states, 
who had recently held a convention at Pittsburg, but it 
was not countenanced or approved by the manufac- 
turers of the eastern states. The members of the South 
also opposed it in a body. Mr. Calhoun concurred in 
sentiment with his political friends from the same sec- 
tion of the country, although he thought that injustice 
had been done to the iron interest in Pennsylvania by 
the act of 1816.* 

* Speech against the Force Bill, 



1817-25.] INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 151 

During the administration of Mr. Monroe the sub- 
ject of internal improvements was likewise again agi- 
tated. Mr. Calhoun was, in the main, an idle but not 
an indifferent spectator, of what was going on around 
him. He was led to reflect more than he had ever be- 
fore done on the power of Congress under the constitu- 
tion to construct works of internal improvement, on 
account of the continued agitation of the subject, and 
the impression ultimately made upon his mind, that no 
such power existed, was clear and abiding. He did 
not approve, therefore, of Mr. Monroe's recommenda- 
tions in regard to internal improvements, though the 
opinions advanced in the special message of May 4th, 
1822, corresponded essentially with those which he him- 
self entertained. 



CHAPTER VII. 

Presidential Election of 1824 — Mr. Calhoun chosen Vice-President — 
Character as Presiding Officer — Refusal to leave his seat when a tie 
vote was anticipated — Decision in regard to the right to call to order 
■ — Opposition to the Measures of Mr. Adams — Reelection of Mr. Cal- 
houn — The Tariff Question — Matured Opinions — Address. 

It is very common for a certain class of people to 
lament the degeneracy of the present age, — as com- 
mon as it is for another class to maintain, that 

" Old politicians chime on wisdom past, 
And totter on in blunders to the last." 

The one are true conservative bigots, wedded to 
ancient forms and usages, and the other ultra proges- 
sionists, fond of overturning for the sake of overturn- 
ing, and never so well pleased as when the destruction 
of an old system furnishes the opportunity of substitut- 
ing some favorite theory of their own. Human insti- 
tutions are by no means perfect, and it would, perhaps, 
be impossible to frame a law or a constitution, for one 
generation, which should be construed by another, un- 
der a change of time and circumstances, in the same 
manner. One abuse is very apt to be followed by a 
score ; and innovation is the prolific mother of a numer- 
ous brood. Yet, after all, he has studied the great book 
of human nature to but little purpose, who imagines 
that politicians are, in the main, any more corrupt at 



1825-32.] PRESIDENTIAL CANVASS. 153 

this day than they were a hundred years ago. No 
class of men are more liable to selfishness, and they 
are not more influenced by that feeling now than they 
have ever been. 

If we examine the political controversies that oc- 
curred in the early history of our country, we find 
them presenting the same characteristics which similar 
disputes now do. Adams and Jefferson were abused 
and calumniated, with as much zeal and bitterness, by 
the cotemporaneous newspaper press, in 1800, as were 
Polk and Clay in 1844. Madison and Monroe, too, 
w r ere treated with as little consideration by their op- 
ponents as were the younger Adams, General Jackson, 
or Mr. Van Buren. The contest for the presidency in 
1808, or that in 1818, was as earnest and animated, 
and the opposing candidates and their friends as anx- 
ious, as was the case in 1848 ; and the election of 1840 
was not viewed with more interest by politicians than 
that of 1824. Wtterly, the people have more directly 
participated in the presidential elections, because the 
candidates are nominated in popular conventions, and 
the electors are everywhere chosen, with but one ex- 
ception, by the popular suffrage ; yet it is very doubt- 
ful whether the present system is better than the old. 
Congressional caucuses were bad enough, but it is 
questionable, whether the inflence that secures the 
nomination of a particular candidate by a national 
convention, does not most commonly emanate from 
the political coteries at Washington. 

From the peculiar circumstances attending the con- 
test for the presidency in 1824, it was characterized by 

as much, if not more, asperity and virulence, than were 

7# 



154 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1825-32. 

usual on such occasions. The course pursued by the 
federal party in relation to the war of 1812 had com- 
pletely alienated from them the affections of the people, 
and their organization was almost entirely lost during 
the "era of good feeling" introduced by Mr. Monroe. 
The party as a party split into fragments. Many still 
continued to adhere to their old principles, but the 
greater number henceforth eschewed them, and adopted, 
in whole or in part, those of the republican school. 

Lone: before the expiration of Mr. Monroe's second 
term, it was quite evident to every observing mind, 
that the federalists, as such, were scarcely to be taken 
into account so far as the question of his successor 
was concerned. None but a republican could be 
elected — that needed no demonstration. But among the 
republicans themselves, there was a great diversity of 
opinion. Six different candidates were in the first 
place proposed by their respective friends, each one of 
whom claimed to belong to the republican party. In 
the northern and eastern states John Quincy Adams 
was the favorite ; Henry Clay was the choice of Ken- 
tucky, Ohio, and Missouri ; Andrew Jackson was the 
most popular in the south-west, and the southern states 
generally were divided between him, and William H. 
Crawford ; while the state of South Carolina presented 
the name of one of her most distinguished sons, Wil- 
liam Lowndes, and Pennsylvania that of another, 
Mr. Calhoun. 

The nomination of Mr. Calhoun was not anticipated 
by himself; neither was Mr. Lowndes aware of the 
kind wishes and intentions of his friends till his name 
was regularly proposed. Between the two there had 



1825-32.] PRESIDENTIAL CANVASS. 155 

long existed a warm personal friendship, and as soon as 
Mr. Calhoun heard of his nomination, he called on Mr. 
Lowndes, and assured him that it had been made with- 
out his procurement or solicitation, and that he should 
much regret to have the circumstance of their being 
opposing candidates produce any change in their private 
relations. His friendly feelings were cordially recipro- 
cated by Mr. Lowndes, and the canvass would un- 
doubtedly have proceeded to its close without impairing 
their mutual esteem, had not the untimely death of Mr. 
Lowndes, in October, 1822, forever removed him from 
the political arena. The relations of Mr. Calhoun with 
all the other candidates, except Mr. Crawford, were like- 
wise friendly. In 1816, Mr. Calhoun had preferred Mr. 
Monroe to Mr. Crawford, and though opposed to the 
plan of holding a congressional caucus, he attended that 
which was held and supported the candidate whom he 
preferred. This occasioned some slight bitterness of 
feeling, which was heightened by the continued oppo- 
sition of Mr. Calhoun to Mr. Crawford when the latter 
was a second time brought forward, as the successor to 
Mr. Monroe. 

It is unnecessary, however, to recapitulate all the cir- 
cumstances attending the presidential election in 1824. 
The friends of Jackson, Adams, Clay, and Calhoun, who 
constituted a majority of the republican members of 
Congress, refused to go into a caucus, as is well known, 
whereupon the minority met and nominated Mr. Craw- 
ford. As between the other candidates, Mr. Calhoun 
preferred General Jackson ; and as it was likely that a 
warm contest would spring up between their respective 



156 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1825-32. 

friends in Pennsylvania, the name of the former was 
finally withdrawn in compliance with his wishes. 

Mr. Calhoun being no longer a candidate for the 
presidential office, he was instantly taken up by the 
friends of General Jackson and Mr. Adams as their 
candidate for the vice-presidency. He also received 
the support of a portion of the friends of Mr. Clay, for 
the same office. South Carolina gave her electoral 
vote to General Jackson and Mr. Calhoun, and her 
members were unanimous in their preference of the 
former over Mr. Adams, the successful candidate, when 
the question came before the House of Representatives 
for their decision. Mr. Calhoun himself was chosen 
vice-president by the colleges, — he receiving one hun- 
dred and eighty- two of the two hundred and sixty- one 
electoral votes. 

On the 4th day of March, 1825, Mr. Calhoun took his 
seat in the Senate of the United States as its presiding 
officer. He left the war department, not as he found it, 
in confusion and disorder, but in every branch regulari- 
ty and order had been restored or introduced. The 
great energy and vigor of his mind, as well as the happy 
combination of his administrative talents, had been dis- 
played in its management ; and so apparent were the 
importance and appropriateness of the reforms which 
he had originated, that General Bernard, the chief of the 
Corps of Engineers while Mr. Calhoun was secretary 
of war, and a favorite officer of Napoleon, often com- 
pared him to that great man. His course, too, was cal- 
culated to gain the respect, while he did not lose the 
esteem, of the officers of the army, for he did away en- 
tirely with the system of favoritism which had been 



1825-32.] CHARACTER AS PRESIDING OFFICER. 157 

tolerated from mistaken notions of expediency, and 
left merit to make its own way, without unduly forcing 
it, or obstructing it by checks and restraints. 

As vice-president, the duties of Mr. Calhoun were 
limited and not often arduous. He always appeared in 
his seat early in the session and remained there till 
shortly before its close. He was prompt and punctual, 
regular in his attendance, and never remiss in his duties. 
He was simple yet dignified ; urbane and courteous ; 
careful himself to observe the rules of decorum, and to 
exact the same from others. He contributed a great 
deal to raise the dignity of the Senate and to elevate 
its character. It had been usual for senators when re- 
ferring to each other, and for the chair in putting ques- 
tions, to use the term " gentlemen." Mr. Calhoun sub- 
stituted for this the more appropriate and dignified term 
of " senators," which has ever since been preserved. 
He was never absent from his seat when a tie vote on 
any important question was anticipated. Occasions of 
this kind were not of frequent occurrence ; but one, in 
particular, deserves to be mentioned. When the tariff 
bill of 1828 was pending before the Senate, Mr. Calhoun 
was the republican candidate for vice-president on the 
same ticket with General Jackson, and as many of the 
friends of the latter in the northern states were favorable 
to the bill, it was feared that the supporters of Mr. 
Adams would, as an electioneering trick, so arrange 
matters in the Senate as to compel Mr. Calhoun to give 
the casting; vote against the bill, in accordance with his 
well-known opinions. He was warmly urged, there- 
fore, to leave his seat, in the event of a tie vote, be- 
cause, it was said, this would be in fact a defeat of the 



158 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1825-32. 

bill, and he would avoid prejudicing the election of the 
republican candidates. But it was not in his nature to 
shrink from any responsibility, — and the duty or power 
of giving the casting vote he regarded as one of great 
solemnity. It was one of the checks and balances de- 
vised by the wisdom of the framers of the constitution, 
and he was the last man to underrate its importance. 
He informed his friends, therefore, that he could not 
consistently vacate his seat, but that they need have 
no fears in regard to the election of General Jackson, 
for, if he was obliged to give the casting vote against 
the bill, as he certainly should do if the emergency con- 
templated by the constitution occurred, his name would 
be promptly withdrawn from the ticket. This was not 
rendered necessary as the bill was passed by a majority 
vote, but Mr. Calhoun is none the less entitled to credit 
for resisting the temptations which would have allured 
him from the path of duty. 

Mr. Calhoun also signalized his term of service as 
vice-president bv the stand he took in defence of the 
rights of the Senate against his own power. At the 
outset of his administration, Mr. Adams encountered 
a most violent opposition on the part of the friends of 
General Jackson, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Calhoun, and a 
part of the former supporters of Mr. Clay. The 
Panama question, involving the principle contended 
for by the federalists during the discussions on Jay's 
treaty that the treaty-making power was supreme, pre- 
sented the first opportunity for the trial of strength 
in Congress. Party feeling was high, and the debates 
in both Houses were unusually animated. Mr. Ran- 
dolph, then a senator from Virginia, was extremely 



1825-32.] RULES OF ORDER. 159 

bitter in his attacks upon the administration, and not 
contenting himself— as he never could — with discussing 
the merits of the question at issue, he condemned the 
motives of the president and the cabinet in the strongest 
terms, and denounced the Secretary of State, (Mr. Clay) 
in particular, for his agency in producing the election 
of Mr. Adams. 

The friends of the administration writhed under 
these attacks, but instead of retorting as they had been 
provoked to do, they censured the vice-president for 
not calling Mr. Randolph to order for words spoken in 
debate. Mr. Calhoun was opposed to the Panama 
mission, in toto. and to the federal doctrines maintained 
bv the friends of Mr. Adams, but no motives of this 
kind influenced him in deciding that he did not possess 
the power to call to order. His decision was upheld 
bv Mr. McLane, Mr. Van Buren, Mr. Macon, Mr. 
Tazewell and Mr. Tyler, though some of them were 
of opinion that the power ought to be given to the 
vice-president, as was in fact afterward done. But 
Mr, Adams himself entered the lists as his own cham- 
pion, and attacked the decision through the columns of 
the National Intelligencer over the signature of Patrick 
Henry. Mr. Calhoun replied over the signature of 
Onslow in two numbers, both of which were replete 
with sound arguments and convincing illustrations, 
and, taken together, constituted a complete justification 
of his course. 

As Mr. Calhoun was opposed to the Panama mission, 
so he did not regard with favor the other leading meas- 
ures of the administration of Mr. Adams — a high tariff 
for protection and a general system of improvements. 



100 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1825-32. 

The mission question having been settled, the " Ameri- 
can System," of which the protective tariff and in- 
ternal improvement system were features, in one or 
other of its phases, was agitated during the whole term 
of Mr. Adams ; nor was it even temporarily disposed 
of till the Maysville veto, and the passage of the com- 
promise act. 

Mr. Calhoun was reelected vice-president in 1828, 
as the republican candidate on the same ticket with 
General Jackson. His opponent was Richard Rush 
of Pennysivania, who received only eighty-three of the 
electoral votes while more than double that number 
were given to Mr. Calhoun. The republican friends 
of Mr. Crawford in Georgia, however, supported Wil- 
liam Smith of South Carolina, and gave him the vote 
of the state. 

While Mr. Calhoun filled the office of vice-president 
he had abundant leisure for study and reflection, with- 
out encroaching on the time necessarily devoted to his 
duties. His opinions upon the theory of the govern- 
ment, the true construction of the constitution, and 
political questions generally, underwent a thorough 
examination and revision, and, with the exception of 
some slight changes or modifications subsequently made, 
were now fully matured. In regard to the tariff, he 
came to the conclusion that the general government 
had no power to collect any more revenue than was 
sufficient to defray the expenses of the government 
economically administered, and that in anticipation of 
the payment of the public debt there ought to be a 
gradual reduction of the duties to the revenue standard. 
Having come to this conclusion, he was then led to 



1831.] ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF S. CAROLINA. 161 

consider what remedy was provided, in case the op- 
posite doctrines prevailed, as he had but too much 
reason to fear they would. These can be expressed 
in no better manner than in the language of his address 
to the people of South Carolina dated at Fort Hill, 
July 26th, 1831, which is here subjoined : 

ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 

The question of the relation which the States and General Govern- 
ment bear to each other is not one of recent origin. From the com- 
mencement of our system, it has divided public sentiment. Even in 
the Convention, while the Constitution was struggling into existence, 
there were two parties as to what this relation should be, whose differ- 
ent sentiments constituted no small impediment in forming that instru- 
ment. After the General Government went into operation, experience 
soon proved that the question had not terminated with the labors of 
the Convention. The great struggle that preceded the political revolu- 
tion of 1801, which brought Mr. Jefferson into power, turned essentially 
on it, and the doctrines and arguments on both sides were embodied and 
ably sustained: on the one, in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, 
and the Report to the Virginia Legislature ; and on the other, in the 
replies of the Legislature of Massachusetts and some of the other 
states. These resolutions and this report, with the decision of the Su- 
preme Court of Pennsylvania about the same time (particularly in the 
case of Cobbett, delivered by Chief-justice M'Kean, and concurred in 
by the whole bench), contain what 1 believe to be the true doctrine on 
this important subject. I refer to them in order to avoid the necessity 
of presenting my views, with the reasons in support of them, in detail. 
As my object is simply to state my opinions, I might pause with 
this reference to documents that so fully and ably state all the points 
immediately connected with this deeply-important subject ; but as 
there are many who may not have the opportunity or leisure to refer 
to them, and as it is possible, however clear they may be, that differ- 
ent persons may place different interpretations on their meaning, I 
will, in order that my sentiments may be fully known, and to avoid all 
ambiguity, proceed to state summarily the doctrines which I conceive 
they embrace. 



1G2 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1831. 

The great and leading principle is, that the General Government 
emanated from the people of the several states, forming distinct politi- 
cal communities, and acting in their separate and sovereign capacity, 
and not from all of the people forming one aggregate political com- 
munity ; that the Constitution of the United States is, in fact, a com- 
pact, to which each state is a party, in the character already described ; 
and that several states, or parties, have a right to judge of its infrac- 
tions ; and iu case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of 
power not delegated, they have the right, in the last resort, to use the 
language of the Virginia Resolutions, " to interpose for arresting the 
progress of the cell, and for maintaining, tvithin their respective limits, 
the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them" This right 
of interposition, thus solemnly asserted by the State of Virginia, be it 
called what it may — State-right, veto, nullification, or by any other 
name — I conceive to be the fundamental principle of our system, rest- 
ing on facts historicalTv as certain as our revolution itself, and deduc- 
tions as simple and demonstrative as that of any political or moral 
truth whatever ; and I firmly believe that on its recognition depend 
the stability and safety of our political institutions. 

I am not ignorant that those opposed to the doctrine have always, 
now and formerly, regarded it in a very different light, as anarchical 
and revolutionary. Could I believe such, in fact, to be its tendency, 
to me it would be no recommendation. I yield to none, I trust, in a 
deep and sincere attachment to our political institutions and the union 
of these states. I never breathed an opposite sentiment ; but, on the 
contrary, I have ever considered them the great instruments of pre- 
serving our liberty, and promoting the happiness of ourselves and our 
posterity ; and next to these I have ever held them most dear. Nearly 
half my life has been passed in the service of the Union, and whatever- 
public reputation I have acquired is indissolubly identified with it. 
To be too national has, indeed, been considered by many, even of my 
friends, to be my greatest political fault. With these strong feelings 
of attachment, I have examined, with the utmost care, the bearing of 
the doctrine in question ; and, so far from anarchical or revolutionary, 
I solemnly believe it to be the only solid foundation of our system, and 
of the Union itself; and that the opposite doctrine, which denies to 
the states the right of protecting their reserved powers, and which 
•would vest in the General Government (it matters not through what 
department) the right of determining, exclusively and finally, the 



1831.] ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF S. CAROLINA. 163 

powers delegated to it, is incompatible with the sovereignty of the 
states, and of the Constitution itself, considered as the basis of a 
Federal Union. As strong as this language is, it is not stronger than 
that used by the illustrious Jefferson, who said to give to the General 
Government the final and exclusive right to judge of its powers, is to 
make " its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of Us powers ;" 
and that, " in all cases of compact between parties having no common 
judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of the in- 
fraction as of the mode and measure of redress." Language cannot be 
more explicit, nor can higher authority be adduced. 

That different opinions are entertained on this subject, I consider but 
as an additional evidence of the great diversity of the human intellect. 
Had not able, experienced, and patriotic individuals, for whom I have 
the highest respect, taken different views, I would have thought the 
right too clear to admit of doubt ; but I am taught by this, as well as 
by many similar instances, to treat with deference opinions differing 
from my own. The error may, possibly, be with me ; but if so, I can 
only say that, after the most mature and conscientious examination, I 
have not been able to detect it. But, with all proper deference, I must 
think that theirs is the error who deny what seems to be an essential 
attribute of the conceded sovereignty of the states, and who attribute 
to the General Government a right utterly incompatible with what all 
acknowledge to be its limited and restricted character : an error origi- 
nating principally, as I must think, in not duly reflecting on the nature 
of our institutions, and on what constitutes the only rational object of 
all political constitutions. 

It has been well said by one of the most sagacious men of antiquity, 
that the object of a constitution is to restrain the government, as that 
of laws is to restrain individuals. The remark is correct ; nor is it less 
true where the government is vested in a majority than where it is in 
a single or a few individuals — in a republic, than a monarchy or aristoc- 
racy. No one can have a higher respect for the maxim that the ma- 
jority ought to govern than I have, taken in its proper sense, subject 
to the restrictions imposed by the Constitution, and confined to sub- 
jects in which every portion of the community have similar interests ; 
but it is a great error to suppose, as many do, that the right of a ma- 
jority to govern is a natural and not a conventional right, and therefore 
absolute and unlimited. By nature every individual has the right to 
govern himself; and governments, whether founded on majorities or 



164 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1831. 

minorities, must derive their right from the assent, expressed or im- 
plied, of the governed, and be subject to such limitations as they may 
impose. Where the interests are the same, that is, where the laws 
that may benefit one will benefit all, or the reverse, it is just and proper 
to place them under the control of the majority ; but where they are 
dissimilar, so that the law that may benefit one portion may be ruin- 
ous to another, it would be, on the contrary, unjust and absurd to sub- 
ject them to its will ; and such I conceive to be the theory on which 
our Constitution rests. 

That such dissimilarity of interests may exist, it is impossible to 
doubt. They are to be found in every community, in a greater or le -s 
degree, however small or homogeneous, and they constitute eve; y- 
where the great difficulty of forming and preserving free institutions. 
To guard against the unequal action of the laws, when applied to dis- 
similar and opposing interests, is, in fact, what mainly renders a con- 
stitution indispensable ; to overlook which, in reasoning on our Consti- 
tution, would be to omit the principal element by which to determine 
its character. Were there no contrariety of interests, nothing would 
be more simple and easy than to form and preserve free institutions. 
The right of suffrage alone would be a sufficient guarantee. It is the 
conflict of opposing interests which renders it the most difficult work 
of man. 

"Where the diversity of interests exists in separate and distinct 
classes of the community, as is the case in England, and was formerly 
the case in Sparta, Rome, and most of the free states of antiquity, the 
rational constitutional provision is that each should be represented in 
the government, as a separate estate, with a distinct voice, and a nega- 
tive on the acts of its co-estates, in order to check their encroachments. 
In England the Constitution has assumed expressly this form, while 
in the governments of Sparta and Rome the same thing was effected 
under different, but not much less efficacious forms. The perfection of 
their organization, in this particular, was that which gave to the consti- 
tutions of these renowned states all their celebrity, which secured their 
liberty for so many centuries, and raised them to so great a height of 
power and prosperity. Indeed, a constitutional provision giving to the 
great and separate interests of the community the right of self- protec- 
tion, must appear, to those who will duly reflect on the subject, not less 
essential to the preservation of liberty than the right of suffrage itself. 
They, in fact, have a common object, to effect which the one is as neces- 



1831.] ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF S. CAROLINA. 165 

sary as the oilier to secure responsibility : that is, that those who make 
and execute the laws should be accountable to those on whom the laws in 
reality operate — the only solid and durable foundation of liberty. If, 
without the right of suffrage, our rulers would oppress us, so, without 
the right of self protection, the major would equally oppress the minor 
interests of the community. The absence of the former would make 
the governed the slaves of the rulers, and of the latter, the feebler in- 
terests, the victim of the stronger. 

Happily for us, we have no artificial and separate classes of society. 
We have wisely exploded all such distinctions ; but we are not, on that 
account, exempt from ail contrariety of interests, as the present dis- 
tracted and dangerous condition of our country, unfortunately, but too 
clearly proves. With us they are almost exclusively geographical, result- 
ing mainly from difference of climate, soil, situation, industry, and produc- 
tion, but are not, therefore, less necessary to be protected by an ade- 
quate constitutional provision than where the distinct interests exist in 
separate classes. The necessity is, in truth, greater, as such separate 
and dissimilar geographical interests are more liable to come into con- 
flict, and more dangerous, when in that state, than those of any other 
description : so much so, that ours is the first instance on record where 
they have not formed, in an extensive territory, separate and indepen- 
dent communities, or subjected the whole to despotic sway. That such 
may not be our unhappy fate also, must be the sincere prayer of every 
lover of his country. 

So numerous and diversified are the interests of our country, that 
they could not be fairly represented in a single government, organized 
so as to give to each great and leading interest a separate and distinct 
voice, as in governments to which I have referred. A plan was 
adopted better suited to our situation, but perfectly novel in its char- 
acter. The powers of the government were divided, not as heretofore, 
in reference to classes, but geographically. One General Government 
was formed for the whole, to which was delegated all the powers sup- 
posed to be necessary to regulate the interests common to all the 
states, leaving others subject to the separate control of the states, being, 
from their local and peculiar character, such that they could not be 
subject to the will of a majority of the whole Union, without the cer- 
tain hazard of injustice and oppression. ' It was thus that the interests 
of the whole were subjected, as they ought to be, to the will of the 
whole, while the peculiar and local interests were left under the con- 



166 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1831. 

trol of the states separately, to whose custody only they could be safely 
confided. This distribution of power, settled solemnly by a constitu- 
tional compact, to which all the states are parties, constitutes the 
peculiar character and excellence of our political system. It is truly 
and emphatically American, without example or parallel. 

To realize its perfection, we must view the General Government and 
those of the states as a whole, each in its proper sphere independent ; 
each perfectly adapted to its respective objects ; the states acting sepa- 
rately, representing and protecting the local and peculiar interests ; 
acting jointly through one General Government, with the weight re- 
spectively assigned to each by the Constitution, representing and pro- 
tecting the interest of the whole, and thus perfecting, by an admirable 
but simple arrangement, the great principle of representation and 
responsibility, without which no government can be free or just. To 
preserve this sacred distribution as originally settled, by coercing each 
to move in its prescribed orb, is the great and difficult problem, on the 
solution of which the duration of our Constitution, of our Union, and, 
in all probability, our liberty depends. How is this to be effected ? 

The question is new when applied to our peculiar political organiza- 
tion, where the separate and conflicting interests of society are repre- 
sented by distinct but connected governments ; but it is, in reality, an 
old question under a new form, long since perfectly solved. "Whenever 
separate and dissimilar interests have been separately represented in 
any government; whenever the sovereign power has been divided in its 
exercise, the experience and wisdom of ages have devised but one mode 
by which such political organization can be preserved — the mode adopt- 
ed in England, and by all governments, ancient and modern, blessed 
with constitutions deserving to be called free — to give to each co-estate 
the right to judge of its powers, with a negative or veto on the acts of 
others, in order to protect against encroachments the interests it 
particularly represents: a principle which all of our Constitutions 
recognize in the distribution of power among their respective depart- 
ments, as essential to maintain the independence of each, but which to 
all who Mill duly reflect on the subject, must appear far more essential, 
for the same object, in thatgreatand fundamental distribution of powers 
between the General and State Governments. So essential is the prin- 
ciple, that to withhold the right from either, where the sovereign power 
is divided, is, in fact, to annul the division itself, and to consolidate in 
the one left in the exclusive possession of the right all powers of govern- 



1831.] ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF S. CAROLINA. 167 

ment ; for it is not possible to distinguish, practically, between a govern- 
ment having all power, and one having the right to take what powers 
it pleases. Nor does it in the least vary the principle, whether the 
distribution of power be between co-estates, as in England, or between 
distinctly organized but connected governments, as with us. The rea- 
son is the same in both cases, while the necessity is greater in our case, 
as the danger of conflict is greater where the interests of a society are 
divided geographically than in any other, as has already been shown. 

These truths do seem to me to be incontrovertible; and I am at a 
loss to understand how any one, who has maturely reflected on the na- 
ture of our institutions, or who has read history or studied the principles 
of free government to any purpose, can call them in question. The ex- 
planation must, it appears to me, be sought in the fact that in every free 
state there are those who look more to the necessity of maintaining 
power than guarding against its abuses. I do not intend reproach, but 
simply to state a fact apparently necessary to explain the contrariety 
of opinions among the intelligent, where the abstract consideration of the 
subject would seem scarcely to admit of doubt. If such be the true 
cause, I must think the fear of weakening the government too much in 
this case to be in a great measure unfounded, or, at least, that the dan- 
ger is much less from that than the opposite side. I do not deny that a 
power of so high a nature may be abused by a state, but when I reflect 
that the states unanimously called the General Government into exist- 
ence with all its powers, which they freely delegated on their part, 
under the conviction that their common peace, safety, and prosperity 
required it ; that they are bound together by a common origin, and the 
recollection of common suffering and common triumph in the great and 
splendid achievement of their independence ; and that the strongest 
feelings of our nature, and among them the love of national power and 
distinction, are on the side of the Union, it does seem to me that the 
fear which would strip the states of their sovereignty, and degrade them, 
in fact, to mere dependent corporations, lest they should abuse a right in- 
dispensable to the peaceable protection of those interests which they 
reserved under their own peculiar guardianship when they created the 
General Government, is unnatural and unreasonable. If those who 
voluntarily created the system cannot be trusted to preserve it, who 
can ? 

So far from extreme danger, I hold that there never was a free state 
in which this great conservative principle, indispensable to all, was ever 



168 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1831. 

so safely lodged. In others, when the co-estates representing the dis- 
similar and conflicting interests of the community came into contact, the 
only alternative was compromise, submission, or force. Not so in ours. 
Should the General Government and a state come into conflict, we have 
a higher remedy ; the power which called the General Government into 
existence, which gave it all its authority, and can enlarge, contract, or 
abolish its powers at its pleasure, may be invoked. The states them- 
selves may be appealed to, three fourths of which, in fact, form a power 
whose decrees are the Constitution itself, and whose voice can silence all 
discontent. The utmost extent, then, of the power is, that a state act- 
ing in its sovereign capacity, as one of the parties to the constitutional 
compact, may compel the government, created by that compact, to sub- 
mit a question touching its infraction to the parties who created it ; to 
avoid the supposed dangers of which it is proposed to resort to the 
novel, the hazardous, and, I must add, fatal project of giving to the 
General Government the sole and final right of interpreting the Consti- 
tution, thereby reversing the whole system, making that instrument the 
creature of its will instead- of a rule of action impressed on it at its 
creation, and annihilating, in fact, the authority which imposed it, and 
from which the government itself derives its existence. 

That such would be the result, were the right in question vested in 
the legislative or executive branch of the government, is conceded by 
all. No one has been so hardy as to assert that Congress or the Presi- 
dent ought to have the right, or deny that, if vested finally and exclu- 
sively in either, the consequences which I have stated would necessari- 
ly follow : but its advocates have been reconciled to the doctrine, on the 
supposition that there is one department of the General Government 
which, from its peculiar organization, affords an independent tribunal 
through which the government may exercise the high authority whichis 
the subject of consideration, with perfect safety to all. 

I yield, I trust, to few in my attachment to the judiciary department. 
I am full- 3 importance, and would maintain it to the fullest 

extent in its constitutional powers and independence; but it is impossi- 
ble forme to believe that it was ever intended by the Constitution that 
it should exercise the power in question, or that it is competent to do so ; 
and, if it were, that it would be a safe depositary of the power. 

Its powers are judicial, and not political, and are expressly confined 
by the Constitution " to all cases in law and equity arising under this 
Constitution, the laws of the United States, and the treaties made, or 



1831.] ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF S. CAROLINA. 169 

which shall be made, under its authority ;" and which I have high au- 
thority in asserting excludes political questions, and comprehends those 
only where there are parties amenable to the process of the court.* 
JSTor is its incompetency less clear than its want of constitutional authori- 
ty. There may be many, and the most dangerous infractions on the 
part of Congress, of which, it is conceded by all, the court, as a judicial 
tribunal, cannot, from its nature, take cognizance. The tariff itself is a 
strong case in point ; and the reason applies equally to all others ivhere 
Congress perverts a power from an object intended to one not intended, 
the most insidious and dangerous of all infractions ; and which may be 
extended to all its powers, more especially to the taxing and appropria- 
ting. But supposing it competent to take cognizance of all infractions 
of every description, the insuperable objection still remains, that it would 
not be a safe tribunal to exercise the power in question. 

It is a universal and fundamental political principle, that the power 
to protect can safely be confided only to those interested in protecting, 
or their responsible agents — a maxim not less true in private than in 
public affairs. The danger in our system is, that the General Govern- 
ment, which represents the interests of the whole, may encroach on the 
states, which represents the peculiar and local interests, or that the 
latter may encroach on the former. 

In examining this point, we ought not to forget that the government, 
through all its departments, judicial as well as others, is administered 
by delegated and responsible agents ; and that the power which really 
controls, ultimately, all the movements, is not in the agents, but those who 
elect or appoint them. To understand, then, its real character, and what 
would be the action of the system in any supposable case, we must 
raise our view from the mere agents to this high controlling power, 
which finally impels every movement of the machine. By doing so, we 
shall find all under the control of the will of a majority, compounded of 
the majority of the states, taken as corporate bodies, and the majority 
of the people of the states, estimated in federal numbers. These, united, 
constitute the real and final power which impels and directs the move- 
ments of the General Government. The majority of the states elect 
the majority of the Senate • of the people of the states, that of the 
House of Representatives; the two united, the President; and the 
President and a majority of the Senate appoint the judges : a majority 

* I refer to the authority of Chief-Justice Marshall, in the case of Jonathan Rob- 
bins. I have not been able to refer to the speech, and speak from memory. 

8 



170 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1831. 

of whom, and a majority of the Senate and House, with the President, 
really exercise all the powers of the government, with the exception 
of the cases where the Constitution requires a greater number than a 
majority. The judges are, in fact, as truly the judicial representatives 
of this united majority, as the majority of Congress itself, or the Presi- 
dent, is its legislative or executive representative ; and to confide the 
power to the judiciary to determine finally and conclusively what 
powers are delegated and what reserved, would be, in reality, to confide 
it to the majority, whose agents they are, and by whom they can be 
controlled in various ways ; and, of course, to subject (against the funda- 
mental principle of our system and all sound political reasoning) the 
reserved powers of the states, with all the local and peculiar interests 
they were intended to protect, to the will of the very majority against 
which the protection was intended. Nor will the tenure by which the 
judges hold their office, however valuable the provision in many other 
respects, materially vary the case. Its highest possible effect would be 
to retard, and not finally to resist the will of a dominant majority. 

But it is useless to multiply arguments. Were it possible that rea- 
son could settle a question where the passions and interests of men are 
concerned, this point would have been long since settled forever by 
the State of Virginia. The report of her Legislature, to which I have 
already referred, has really, in my opinion, placed it beyond contro- 
versy. Speaking in reference to this subject, it says: "It has been 
objected" (to the right of a state to interpose for the protection of her 
reserved rights) " that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the 
sole expositor of the Constitution. On this objection it might be ob- 
served, first, that there may be instances of usurped powers which the 
forms of the Constitution could never draw within the control of the 
judicial department; secondly, that, if the decision of the judiciary be 
raised above the sovereign parties cf the Constitution, the decisions of 
the other departments, not carried by the forms of the Constitution 
before the judiciary, must be equally authoritative and final with the 
decision of that department. But the proper answer to the objection 
is, that the resolution of the General Assembly relates to those great 
and extraordinary cases in which all the forms of the Constitution may 
prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights 
of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers, 
not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other, 
departments, but that the judicial department may also exercise o* 



1831.] ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF S. CAROLINA. 171 

sanction dangerous powers, beyond the grant of the Constitution, and, 
consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution 
to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must ex- 
tend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another — 
by the judiciary, as well as by the executive or legislative." 

Against these conclusive arguments, as they seem to me, it is ob- 
jected that, if one of the parties has the right to judge of infractions 
of the Constitution, so has the other ; and that, consequently, in cases 
of contested powers between a state and the General Government, 
each would have a right to maintain its opinion, as is the case when 
sovereign powers differ in the construction of treaties or compacts, and 
that, of course, it would come to be a mere question of force. The 
error is in the assumption that the General Government is a party to 
the constitutional compact. The states, as has been shown, formed the 
compact, acting as sovereign and independent communities. The Gen- 
eral Government is but its creature ; and though, in reality, a govern- 
ment, with all the rights and authority which belong to any other gov- 
ernment, within the orbit of its powers, it is, nevertheless, a government 
emanating from a compact between sovereigns, and partaking, in its 
nature and object, of the character of a joint commission, appointed to 
superintend and administer the interests in which all are jointly con- 
cerned, but having, beyond its proper sphere, no more power than if it 
did not exist. To deny this would be to deny the most incontestable 
facts and the clearest conclusions ; while to acknowledge its truth is to 
destroy utterly the objection that the appeal would be to force, in the 
case supposed. For, if each party has a right to judge, then, under 
our system of government, the final cognizance of a question of con- 
tested power would be in the states, and not in the General Govern- 
ment. It would be the duty of the latter, as in all similar cases of a 
contest between one or more of the principals and a joint commission 
or agency, to refer the contest to the principals themselves. Such are 
the plain dictates of both reason and analogy. On no sound principle 
can the agents have a right to final cognizance, as against the princi- 
pals, much less to use force against them to maintain their construction 
of their powers. Such a right would be monstrous, and has never, 
heretofore, been claimed in similar cases. 

That the doctrine is applicable to the case of a contested power be- 
tween the states and the General Government, we have the authority 
not only of reason and analogy, but of the distinguished statesman 



172 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1831. 

already referred to. Mr. Jefferson, at a late period of his life, after 
long experience and mature reflection, says, " With respect to our State 
and Federal Governments, I do not think their relations are correctly 
understood by foreigners. They suppose the former are subordinate 
to the latter. This is not the case. They are coordinate departments 
of one simple and integral whole. But you may ask, If the two de- 
partments should claim each the same subject of power, where is the 
umpire to decide between them ? In cases of little urgency or im- 
portance, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the 
questionable ground ; but, if it can neither be avoided nor compro- 
mised, a convention of the states must be called to ascribe the doubtful 
power to that department which they may think best." It is thus that 
our Constitution, by authorizing amendments, and by prescribing the 
authority and mode of making them, has, by a simple contrivance, with 
its characteristic wisdom, provided a power which, in the last resort, 
supersedes effectually the necessity, and even the pretext for force: a 
power to which none can fairly object ; with which the interests of all 
are safe ; which can definitively close all controversies in the only 
effectual mode, by freeing the compact of every defect and uncertainty, 
by an amendment of the instrument itself. It is impossible for human 
wisdom, in a system like ours, to devise another mode which shall be 
safe and effectual, and, at the same time, consistent with what are the 
relations and acknowledged powers of the two great departments of 
our government. It gives a beauty and security peculiar to our system, 
which, if duly appreciated, will transmit its blessings to the remotest 
generations ; but, if not, our splendid anticipations of the future will 
prove but an empty dream. Stripped of all its covering, the naked 
question is, whether ours is a federal or a consolidated government ; a 
constitutional or absolute one ; a government resting ultimately on the 
solid basis of the sovereignty of the states or on the unrestrained will 
of a majority, a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, 
in which injustice, and violence, and force must finally prevail. Let it 
never be forgotten that, where the majority rules without restriction, the 
minority is the subject; and that, if we should absurdly attribute to 
the former the exclusive right of construing the Constitution, there 
would be, in fact, between the sovereign and subject, under such a gov- 
ernment, no constitution, or, at least, nothing deserving the name, or 
serving the legitimate object of so sacred an instrument." 

How the states are to exercise this high power of interposition, 



1831.] ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF S. CAROLINA. 173 

which constitutes so essential a portion of their reserved rights that it 
cannot be delegated without an entire surrender of their sovereignty, and 
converting our system from a federal into a consolidated government, 
is a question that the states only are competent to determine. The 
arguments which prove that they possess the power, equally prove that 
they are, in the language of Jefferson, "the rightful judges of the mode 
and measure of redress" But the spirit of forbearance, as well as the 
nature of the right itself, forbids a recourse to it, except in cases of 
dangerous infractions of the Constitution ; and then only in the last 
resort, when all reasonable hope of relief from the ordinary action of 
the government has failed ; when, if the right to interpose did not 
exist, the alternative Avould be submission and oppression on one side, 
or resistance by force on the other. That our system should afford, in 
such extreme cases, an intermediate point between these dire alterna- 
tives, by which the government maybe brought to a pause, and thereby 
an interval obtained to compromise differences, or, if impracticable, be 
compelled to submit the question to a constitutional adjustment, through 
an appeal to the states themselves, is an evidence of its high wisdom : 
an element not, as is supposed by some, of weakness, but of strength ; 
not of anarchy or revolution, but of peace and safety. Its general 
recognition would of itself in a great measure, if not altogether, super- 
sede the necessity of its exercise, by impressing on the movements of the 
government that moderation and justice so essential to harmony and 
peace, in a country of such vast extent and diversity of interests as ours ; 
and would, if controversy should come, turn the resentment of the 
aggrieved from the system to those who had abused its powers (a 
point all-important), and cause them to seek redress, not in revolution 
or overthrow, but in reformation. It is, in fact, properly understood, 
a substitute, where the alternative would be force, tending to 'prevent, and, 
if that fails, to correct peaceably the aberrations to which all systems 
are liable, and which, if permitted to accumulate without correction, 
must finally end in a general catastrophe. 

I have now said what I intended in reference to the abstract question 
of the relation of the states to the General Government, and would 
here conclude, did I not believe that a mere general statement on an 
abstract question, without including that which may have caused its 
agitation, would be considered by many imperfect and unsatisfactory. 
Feeling that such would be justly the case, I am compelled, reluctantly, 
to touch on the tariff, so far, at least, as may be necessary to illustrate 



174 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1831. 

the opinions which I have already advanced. Anxious, however, to 
intrude as little as possible on the public attention, I will be as brief as 
possible ; and with that view will, as far as may be consistent with my 
object, avoid all debatable topics. 

Whatever diversity of opinion may exist in relation to the principle, 
or the effect on the productive industry of the country, of the present, 
or any other tariff of protection, there are certain political conse- 
quences flowing from the present which none can doubt, and all must 
deplore. It would be in vain to attempt to conceal, that it has divided 
the country into two great geographical divisions, and arrayed them 
against each other, in opinion at least, if not interests also, on some of 
the most vital of political subjects — on its finance, its commerce, and 
its industry — subjects calculated, above all others, in time of peace, to 
produce excitement, and in relation to which the tariff has placed the 
sections in question in deep and dangerous conflict. If there be any 
point on which the (I was going to say, southern section, but to avoid 
as far as possible, the painful feelings such discussions are calculated to 
excite, I shall say) weaker of the two sections is unanimous, it is that 
its prosperity depends, in a great measure, on free trade, light taxes, 
economical, and, as far as possible, equal disbursements of the public 
revenue, and unshackled industry, leaving them to pursue whatever 
may appear most advantageous to their interests. From the Potomac 
to the Mississippi, there are few, indeed, however divided on other 
points, who would not, if dependent on their volition, and if they re- 
garded the interest of their particular section only, remove from com- 
merce and industry every shackle, reduce the revenue to the lowest 
point that the wants of the government fairly required, and restrict 
the appropriations to the most moderate scale consistent with the 
peace, the security, and the engagements of the public ; and who do 
not believe that the opposite system is calculated to throw on them an 
unequal burden, to repress their prosperity, and to encroach on their 
enjoyment. 

On all these deeply-important measures, the opposite opinion pre- 
vails, if not with equal unanimity, with at least a greatly preponderat- 
ing majority, in the other and stronger section ; so much so, that no 
two distinct nations ever entertained more opposite views of policy 
than these two sections do on all the important points to which I have 
referred. Nor is it less certain that this unhappy conflict, flowing 
directly from the tariff, has extended itself to the halls of legisla- 



1831.] ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF S. CAROLINA. 175 

tion, and has converted the deliberations of Congress into an annual 
struggle between the two sections ; the stronger to maintain and in- 
crease the superiority it has already acquired, and the other to throw 
off or diminish its burdens : a struggle in which all the noble and gen- 
erous feelings of patriotism are gradually subsiding into sectional and 
selfish attachments.* Nor has the effect of this dangerous conflict 
ended here. It has not only divided the two sections on the important 
point already stated, but on the deeper and more dangerous questions, 
the constitutionality of a protective tariff, and the general principles 
and theory of the Constitution itself: the stronger, in order to main- 
tain their superiority, giving a construction to the instrument which 
the other believes would convert the General Government into a con- 
solidated, irresponsible government, with the total destruction of lib- 
erty ; and the weaker, seeing no hope of relief with such assumption 
of powers, turning its eye to the reserved sovereignty of the states, as 
the only refuge from oppression. I shall not extend these remarks, as 
I might, by showing that, while the effect of the system of protection 
was rapidly alienating one section, it was not less rapidly, by its neces- 
sary operation, distracting and corrupting the other ; and, between the 
two, subjecting the administration to violent and sudden changes, 
totally inconsistent with all stability and wisdom in the management 
of the affairs of the nation, of which we already see fearful symptoms. 
For do I deem it necessary to inquire whether this unhappy conflict 
grows out of true or mistaken views of interest on either or both 
sides. Regarded in either light, it ought to admonish us of the ex- 
treme danger to which our system is exposed, and the great modera- 
tion and wisdom necessary to preserve it. If it comes from mistaken 
views — if the interests of the two sections, as affected by the tariff, be 
really the same, and the system, instead of acting unequally, in reality 
diffuses equal blessings, and imposes equal burdens on every part— it 
ought to teach us how liable those who are differently situated, and 
who view then- interests under different aspects, are to come to differ- 
ent conclusions, even when their interests are strictly the same ; and, 
consequently, with what extreme caution any system of policy ought 

* This system, if continued, must end, not only in subjecting the industry and 
property of the weaker section to the control of the stronger, but in proscription and 
political disfranchisement. It must finally control elections and appointments to 
oflices, as well as acts of legislation, to the great increase of the feelings of animosity, 
and of the fatal tendency to complete alienation between the sections. 



176 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1831. 

to be adopted, and with what a spirit of moderation pursued, in a 
country of such great extent and diversity as ours. But if, on the 
contrary, the conflict springs really from contrariety of interests — if 
the burden be on one side and the benefit on the other — then are we 
taught a lesson not less important, how little regard we have for the 
interests of others while in pursuit of our own ; or, at least, how apt 
we are to consider our own interest the interest of all others ; and, of 
course, how great the daDger, in a country of such acknowledged 
diversity of interests, of the oppression of the feebler by the stronger 
interest, and, in consequence of it, of the most fatal sectional conflicts. 
But whichever may be the cause, the real or supposed diversity of 
interest, it cannot be doubted that the political consequences of the 
prohibitory system, be its effects in other respects beneficial or other- 
wise, are really such as I have stated ; nor can it be doubted that a 
conflict between the great sections, on questions so vitally important, in- 
dicates a condition of the country so distempered and dangerous, as 
to demand the most serious and prompt attention. It is only when we 
come to consider of the remedy, that, under the aspect I am viewing 
the subject, there can be, among the informed and considerate, any 
diversity of opinion. 

Those who have not duly reflected on its dangerous and inveterate 
character, suppose that the disease will cure itself; that events ought 
to be left to take their own course; and that experience, in a short time, 
will prove that the interest of the whole community is the same in 
reference to the tariff, or, at least, whatever diversity there may now 
be, time will assimilate. Such has been their language from the begin- 
ning, bnt, unfortunately, the progress of events has been the reverse, 
The country is now more divided than in 1824, and then more than in 
1816. The majority may have increased, but the opposite sides are, be- 
yond dispute, more determined and excited than at any preceding 
period. Formerly, the system was resisted mainly as inexpedient ; but 
now, as unconstitutional, unequal, unjust, and oppressive. Then, relief 
was sought exclusively from the General Government ; but now, many, 
driven to despair, are raising their eyes to the reserved sovereignty of 
the states as the only refuge. If we turn from the past and present to 
the future, we shall find nothing to lessen, but much to aggravate the 
danger. The increasing embarrassment and distress of the staple 
states, the growing conviction, from experience, that they are caused 
by the prohibitory system principally, and that under its continued 



1831.] ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF S. CAROLINA. 177 

operation, their present pursuits must become profitless, and with a con- 
viction that thiir great an 1 peculiar agricultural capital cannot be di- 
verted from its ancient and hereditary channels without ruinous losses, 
all concur to increase, instead of dispelling, the gloom that hangs over 
the future. In fact, to those who will duly reflect on the subject, the 
hope that the disease will cure itself must appear perfectly illusory. 
The question is, in reality, one between the exporting and non-export- 
ing interests of the cotintry. Were there no exports, there would be no 
tariff. It would be perfectly useless. On the contrary, so long as 
there are states which raise the great agricultural staples with the view 
of obtaining their supplies, and which must depend on the general 
market of the world for their sales, the conflict must remain if the sys- 
tem should continue, and the disease become more and more inveter- 
ate. Their interest, and that of those who, by high duties, would con- 
fine the purchase of their supplies to the home market, must, from the 
nature of things, in reference to the tariff, be in conflict. Till, then, we 
cease to raise the great staples cotton, rice, and tobacco, for the general 
market, and till we can find some other profitable investment for the 
immense amount of capital and labor now employed in their produc- 
tion, the present unhappy and dangerous conflict cannot terminate, un- 
less with the prohibitory system itself. 

In the mean time, while idly waiting for its termination through its 
own action, the progress of events in another quarter is rapidly bring- 
ing the contest to an immediate and decisive issue. We are fast ap- 
proaching a period very novel in the history of nations, and bearing 
directly and powerfully on the point under consideration — the final 
payment of a long-standing funded debt — a period that cannot be 
greatly retarded, or its natural consequences eluded, without proving 
disastrous to those who attempt either, if not to the country itself. 
When it arrives the government will find itself in possession of a sur- 
plus revenue of $10,000,000 or $12,000,000, if not previously disposed 
of — which presents the important question, What previous disposition 
ought to be made ? a question which must press urgently for decision at 
the very next session of Congress. It cannot be delayed longer without 
the most distracting and dangerous consequences. 

The honest and obvious course is, to prevent the accumulation of the 
surplus in the treasury by a timely and judicious reduction of the im- 
posts ; and thereby to leave the money in the pockets of those who 
made it, and from whom it cannot be honestly nor constitutionally taken, 



178 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1831. 

unless required by the fair and legitimate wants of the government. If, 
neglecting a disposition so obvious and just, the government should 
attempt to keep up the present high duties, when the money is no 
longer wanted, or to dispose of this immense surplus by enlarging the 
old, or devising new schemes of appropriations; or, finding that to be 
impossible, it should adopt, the most dangerous, unconstitutional, and 
absurd project ever devised by any government, of dividing the surplus 
among the states — a project which, if carried into execution, would not 
fail to create an antagonist interest between the states and General 
Government on all questions of appropriations, which would certainly' 
end in reducing the latter to a mere office of collection and distribution 
— either of these modes would be considered by the section suffering 
under the present high duties as a fixed determination to perpetuate 
forever what it considers the present unequal, unconstitutional, and op- 
pressive burden; and from that moment it would cease to look to the 
General Government for relief. This deeply-interesting period, which 
must prove so disastrous should a wrong direction be given, but so for- 
tunate and glorious, should a right one, is just at hand. The work must 
commence at the next session, as I have stated, or be left undone, or, at 
least, be badly done. The succeeding session would be too short, and 
too much agitated by the presidential contest, to afford the requisite 
leisure and calmness ; and the one succeeding would find the country in 
the midst of the crisis, when it would be too late to prevent an accumu- 
lation of the surplus; which I hazard nothing in saying, judging from 
the nature of men and government, if once permitted to accumulate, 
would create an interest strong enough to perpetuate itself, supported, 
as it would be, by others so numerous and powerful; and thus would 
pass away a moment, never to be quietly recalled, so precious, if prop- 
eilv used, to lighten the public burden; to equalize the action of the 
government; to restore harmony and peace ; and to present to the 
world the illustrious example, which could not fail to prove most favor- 
able to the great cause of liberty everywhere, of a nation the freest, 
and, at the same time, the best and most cheaply governed ; of the 
highest earthly blessing at the least possible sacrifice. 

As the disease will not, then, heal itself, we are brought to the ques- 
tion, Can a remedy be applied ? and if so, what ought it to be \ 

To answer in the negative would be to assert that our Union has 
utterly failed ; and that the opinion, so common before the adoption of 
our Constitution, that a free government could not be practically ex- 



1831.] ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF S. CAROLINA. 179 

tended over a large country, was correct : and that ours had been de- 
stroyed by giving it limits so great as to comprehend, not only dissimi- 
lar, but irreconcilable Interests. I am not prepared to admit a con- 
clusion that would cast so deep a shade on the future, and that would 
falsify all the glorious anticipations of our ancestors, while it would so 
greatly lessen their high reputation for wisdom. Nothing but the 
clearest demonstration, founded on actual experience, will ever force 
me to a conclusion so abhorrent to all my feelings. As strongly as I 
am impressed with the great dissimilarity, and, as I must add, as truth 
compels me to do, contrariety of interests in our country, resulting from 
the causes already indicated, and which are so great that they cannot be 
subjected to the unchecked will of a majority of the whole without de- 
feating the great end of government, and without which it is a curse — 
justice — yet I see in the Union, as ordained by the Constitution, the 
means, if wisely used, not only of reconciling ail diversifies, but also 
the means, and the only effectual one, of securing to us justice, peace, 
and security, at home and abroad, and with them that national power 
and renown, the love of which Providence has implanted, for wise pur- 
poses, so deeply in the human heart : in all of which great objects, 
every portion of our country, widely extended and diversified as it is, 
has a common and identical interest. If we have the wisdom to place 
a proper relative estimate on these more elevated and durable blessings, 
the present and every other conflict of like character may be readily 
terminated; but if, reversing the scale, each section should put a higher 
estimate on its immediate and peculiar gains, and, acting in that spirit, 
should push favorite measures of mere policy, without some regard to 
peace, harmony or justice, our sectional conflicts would then, indeed, 
without some constitutional cheek, become interminable, except by the 
dissolution of the Union itself. That we have, in fact, so reversed the 
estimate, is too certain to be doubted, and the result is our present dis- 
tempered and dangerous condition. The cure must commence in the 
correction of the error ; and not to admit that we have erred would be 
the worst possible symptom. It would prove the disease to be in- 
curable, through the regular and ordinary process of legislation ; and 
would compel, finally a resort to extraordinary, but I still trust, not only 
constitutional, but safe remedies. 

No one would more sincerely rejoice than myself to see the remedy 
applied from the quarter where it could be most easily and regularly 
done. It is the only way by which those who think that it is the only 



180 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1831. 

quarter from which it can constitutionally come, can possibly sustain 
their opinion. To omit the application by the General Government 
would compel even them to admit the truth of the opposite opinion, or 
force them to abandon our political system in despair ; while, on the 
other hand, all their enlightened and patriotic opponents would rejoice 
at such evidence of moderation and wisdom, on the part of the General 
Government, as would supersede a resort to what they believe to be the 
higher powers of our political system, as indicating a sounder state of 
public sentiment than has ever heretofore existed in any country, and 
thus affording the highest possible assurance of the perpetuation of our 
glorious institutions to the latest generation. For, as a people advance 
in knowledge, in the same degree they may dispense with mere arti- 
ficial restrictions in their government ; and we may imagine (but dare 
not expect to see it) a state of intelligence so universal and high, that 
all the guards of liberty may be dispensed with except an enlightened 
public opinion, acting through the right of suffrage ; but it presupposes 
a state where every class and every section of the community are capa- 
ble of estimating the effects of every measure, not only as it may affecfe 
itself, but every other class and section ; and of fully realizing the sub- 
lime truth that the highest and wisest policy consists in maintaining 
justice, and promoting peace and harmony ; and that, compared to these, 
schemes of mere gain are but trash and dross. I fear experience has 
already proved that we are far removed from such a state, and that we 
must, consequently, rely on the old and clumsy, but approved mode of 
checking power, in order to prevent or correct abuses; but I do trust 
that, though far from perfect, we are, at least, so much so as to be capa- 
ble of remedying the present disorder in the ordinary way ; and thus 
to prove that with us public opinion is so enlightened, and our political 
machine so perfect, as rarely to require for its preservation the inter- 
vention of the power that created it. How is that to be effected i 

The application may be painful, but the remedy, I conceive, is certain 
and simple. There is but one effectual cure — an honest reduction of the 
duties to a fair system of revenue, adapted to the just and constitutional 
wants of the government. Nothing short of this will restore the coun- 
try to peace, harmony, and mutual affection. There is already a deep 
and growing conviction, in a large section of the country, that the im- 
post, even as a revenue system, is extremely unequal, and that it is 
mainly paid by those who furnish the means of paying the foreign ex- 
changes of the country on which it is laid ; and that the case would 



1831.] 



ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF S. CAROLINA. 181 



not be varied, taking into the estimate the entire action of the system, 
whether the producer or consumer pays in the first instance. 

I do not propose to enter formally into the discussion of a point so 
complex and contested ; but, as it has necessarily a strong practical 
bearing on the subject under consideration in all its relations, I cannot 
pass it without a few general and brief remarks : 

If the producer in reality pays, none will doubt but the burden would 
mainly fall on the section it is supposed to do. The theory that the 
consumer - pays in the first instance renders the proposition mure com- 
plex, and will require, in order to understand where the burden, in 
reality, ultimately falls, on that supposition, to consider the protective, 
or, as its friends call it, the American System, under its threefold aspect 
of taxation, of protection, and of distribution, or as performing, at the 
same time, the several functions of giving a revenue to the government, 
of affording protection to certain branches of domestic industry, and fur- 
nishing means to Congress of distributing large sums through its appro- 
priations: all of which are so blended in their effects, that it is impossi- 
ble to understand its true operation without taking the whole into the 
estimate. 

Admitting, then, as supposed, that he who consumes the article pays 
the tax in the increased price, and that the burden falls wholly on the 
consumers, without affecting the producers as a class (which, by-the-by, 
is far from being true, except in the single case, if there be such a one, 
where the producers have a monopoly of an article so indispensable to 
life that the quantity consumed cannot be affected by any increase of 
price), and that, considered in the light of a tax merely, the impost 
duties fall equally on every section in proportion to its population, still, 
when combined with its other effects, the burden it imposes as a tax 
may be so transferred from one section to the other as to take it from 
one and place it wholly on the other. Let us apply the remark first to 
its operation as a system of protection : 

The tendency of the tax or duty on the imported article is not only 
to raise its price, but also, in the same proportion, that of the domestic 
article of the same kind, for which purpose, when intended for protec- 
tion, it is, in fact, laid ; and, of course, in determining where the system 
ultimately places the burden in reality, this effect, also, must be taken 
into the estimate. If one of the sections exclusively produces such 
domestic articles, and the other purchases them from it, then it is clear 
that to the amount of such increased prices, the tax or duty on the con- 



182 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1831. 

sumption of foreign articles would be transferred from the section pro- 
ducing the domestic articles to the one that purchased and consumed 
them, unless the latter, in turn, be indemnified by the increased price of 
the objects of its industry, which none will venture to assert to be the 
case with the great staples of the country which form the basis of our 
exoorts, the price of which is regulated by the foreign, and not the do- 
mestic market. To those who grow them, the increased price of the 
foreign and domestic articles both, in consequence of the duty on the 
former, is in reality, and in the strictest sense, a tax, while it is clear 
that the increased price of the latter acts as a bounty to the section 
producing them ; and that, as the amount of such increased prices on 
what it sells to the other section is greater or less than the duty it pays 
on the imported articles, the system will, in fact, operate as a bounty or 
tax : if greater, the difference would be a bounty ; if less, a tax. 

Again, the operation may be equal in every other respect, and yet 
the pressure of the system, relatively, on the two sections, be rendered 
very unequal by the appropriations or distribution. If each section 
receives back what it paid into the treasury, the equality, if it previous- 
ly existed, will continue ; but if one receives back less, and the other 
proportionably more than is paid, then the difference in relation to the 
sections will be to the former a loss, and to the latter a gain ; and the 
system, in this aspect, would operate to the amount of the difference, 
as a contribution from the one receiving less than it paid to the other 
that receives more. Such would be incontestably its general effects, 
taken in all its different aspects, even on the theory supposed to be 
most favorable to prove the equal action of the system, that the con- 
sumer pays in the first instance the whole amount of the tax. 

To show how, on this supposition, the burden and advantages of the 
s\>tem would actually distribute themselves between the sections, would 
carry me too far into details ; but I feel assured, after full and careful 
examination, that they are such as to explain what otherwise would 
seem inexplicable, that one section should consider its repeal a calamity 
and the other a blessing ; and that such opposite views should be taken 
by them as to place them in a state of determined conflict in relation to 
the great fiscal and commercial interests of the country. Indeed, were 
there no satisfactory explanation, the opposite views that prevail in the 
two sections, as to the effects of the system, ought to satisfy all of its 
unequal action. There can be no safer, or more certain rule, than to 
suppose each portion of the country equally capable of understanding 



1831.] ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF S. CAROLINA. 



183 



its respective interests, and that each is a much better judge of the 
effects of any system or measures on its peculiar interest than the other 
can possibly be. 

But, whether the opinion of its unequal action be correct or errone- 
ous, nothing can be more certain than that the impression is widely 
extending itself, that the system, under all its modifications, is essen- 
tially unequal ; and if to that be added a conviction still deeper and 
more universal, that every duty imposed for the purpose of protection 
is not only unequal, but also unconstitutional, it would be a fatal error 
to suppose that any remedy, short of that which I have stated, can 
heal our political disorders. 

In order to understand more fully the difficulty of adjusting this un- 
happy contest on any other ground, it may not be improper to present 
a general view of the constitutional objection, that it may be clearly 
seen how hopeless it is to expect that it can be yielded by those who 
have embraced it. 

They believe that all the powers vested by the Constitution in Con- 
gress are not only restricted by the limitations expressly imposed, but 
also by the nature and object of the powers themselves. Thus, though 
the power to impose duties on imports be granted in general terms, 
without any other express limitations but that they shall be equal, and 
no preference shall be given to the ports of one state over those of an- 
other, yet, as being a portion of the taxing power given with the view 
of raising the revenue, it is, from its nature, restricted to that object, 
as much so as if the Convention had expressly so limited it ; and that 
to use it to effect any other purpose not specified in the Constitution, is 
an infraction of the instrument in its most dangerous form — an infrac- 
tion by perversion, more easily made, and more difficult to resist, than 
any other. The same view is believed to be applicable to the power 
of regulating commerce, as well as all the other powers. To surrender 
this important principle, it is conceived, would be to surrender all 
power, and to render the government unlimited and despotic ; and to 
yield it up, in relation to the particular power in question, would be, in 
fact, to surrender the control of the whole industry and capital of the 
country to the General Government, and would end in placing the 
weaker section in a colonial relation with the stronger. For nothing 
are more dissimilar in their nature, or may be more unequally affected 
by the same laws, than different descriptions of labor and property ; 
and if taxes, by increasing the amount and changing the intent only, 



184 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1831. 

may be perverted, in fact, into a system of penalties and rewards, it 
would give all the power that could be desired to subject the labor and 
property of the minority to the will of the majority, to be regulated 
without regarding the interest of the former in subserviency to the will 
of the latter. Thus thinking, it would seem unreasonable to expect 
that any adjustment, based on the recognition of the correctness of a 
construction of the Constitution which would admit the exercise of 
such a power, would satisfy the weaker of two sections, particularly 
with its peculiar industry and property, which experience has shown 
may be so injuriously affected by its exercise. Thus much for one side. 
The just claim of the other ought to be equally respected. What- 
ever excitement the svstem has justly caused in certain portions of our 
country, I hope and believe all will conceive that the change should be 
made with the least possible detriment to the interests of those who 
may be liable to be affected by it, consistently with what is justly due 
to others, and the principles of the Constitution. To effect this will 
require the kindest spirit of conciliation and the utmost skill; but, 
even with these, it will be impossible to make the transition without a 
shock, greater or less, though I trust, if judiciously effected, it will not 
be without many compensating advantages. That there will be some 
such cannot be doubted. It will, at least, be followed by greater sta- 
bility, and will tend to harmonize the manufacturing with all of the 
other great interests of the country, and bind the whole in mutual 
affection. But these are not all. Another advantage of essential im- 
portance to the ultimate prosperity of our manufacturing industry will 
follow. It will cheapen production ; and, in that view, the loss of any 
one branch will be nothing like in proportion to the reduction of duty 
on that particular branch. Every reduction will, in fact, operate as a 
bounty to every other branch except the one reduced ; and thus the 
effect of a general reduction will be to cheapen, universally, the price 
of production, by cheapening living, wages, and materials, so as to 
give, if not equal profits after the reduction — profits by no means re- 
duced proportionally to the duties — an effect which, as it regards the 
foreign markets, is of the utmost importance. It must be apparent, on 
reflection, that the means adopted to secure the home market for our 
manufactures are precisely the opposite of those necessary to obtain 
the foreign. In the former, the increased expense of production, in 
consequence of a system of protection, may be more than compensated 
by the increased price at home of the article protected ; but in the lat- 



1831.] ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF S. CAROLINA. 185 

ter, this advantage is lost ; and, as there is no other corresponding 
compensation, the increased cost of production must be a dead loss in 
the foreign market. But whether these advantages, and many others 
that might be mentioned, will ultimately compensate to the full extent 
or not the loss to the manufacturers, on the reduction of the duties, 
certain it is, that we have approached a point at which a great change 
cannot be much lunger delayed ; and that the more promptly it may 
be met, the less excitement there will be, and the greater leisure and 
calmness for a cautious and skillful operation in making the transition ; 
and which it becomes those more immediately interested to duly con- 
sider. Nor ought they to overlook, in considering the question, the dif- 
ferent character of the claims of the two sides. The one asks from 
government no advantage, but simply to be let alone in the undis- 
turbed possession of their natural advantages, and to secure which, as 
far as was consistent with the other objects of the Constitution, was 
one of their leading motives in entering into the Union ; while the 
other side claims, for the advancement of their prosperity, the positive 
interference of the government. In such cases, on every principle of 
fairness and justice, such interference ought to be restrained within 
limits strictly compatible with the natural advantages of the other. 
He who looks to all the causes in operation, the near approach of the 
final payment of the public debt, the growing disaffection and resist- 
ance to the system in so large a section of the country, the deeper 
principles on which opposition 4o it is gradually turning, must be, in- 
deed, infatuated not to see a great change is unavoidable ; and that 
the attempt to elude or much longer delay it must finally but Increase 
the shock and disastrous consequences which may follow. 

In forming the opinions I have expressed, I have not been actuated 
by an unkind feeling towards our manufacturing interests I now am, 
and ever have been, decidedly friendly to them, though I cannot con- 
cur in all the measures which have been adopted to advance them. I 
believe considerations higher than any question of mere pecuniary in- 
terest forbade their use. But subordinate to these higher views of 
policy, I regard the advancement of mechanical and chemical improve- 
ments in the arts with feelings little short of enthusiasm; not only as 
the prolific source of national and individual wealth, but as the great 
means of enlarging the domain of man over the material world, and 
thereby of laying the solid foundation of a highly-improved condition 
of society, morally and politically. I fear not that we shall extend 



186 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1831. 

our power too far over the great agents of nature ; but, on the con- 
trary, I consider such enlargement of our power as tending more cer- 
tainly and powerfully to better the condition of our race than any one 
of the many powerful causes now operating to that result. With 
these impressions, I not only rejoice at the general progress of the 
arts in the world, but in their advancement in our own country ; and 
as far as protection may be incidentally afforded, in the fair and honest 
exercise of our constitutional powers, I think now, as I have always 
thought, that sound policy, connected with the security, independence, 
and peace of the country, requires it should be done, but that we can- 
not go a single step beyond without jeopardizing our peace, our har- 
mony, and our liberty — considerations of infinitely more importance to 
us than any measure of mere policy can possibly be. 

In thus placing my opinions before the public, I have not been actu- 
ated by the expectation of changing the public sentiment. Such a 
motive, on a question so long agitated, and so beset with feelings of 
prejudice and interest, would argue, on my part, an insufferable vanity, 
and a profound ignorance of the human heart. To avoid as far as pos- 
sible the imputation of either, I have confined my statement, on the 
many and important points on which I have been compelled to touch, 
to a simple declaration of my opinion, without advancing any other 
reasons to sustain them than what appeared to me to be indispensable 
to the full understanding of my views ; and if they should, on any 
point, be thought to be not clearly and explicitly developed, it will, I 
trust, be attributed to my solicitude to avoid the imputations to which 
I have alluded, and not to any desire to disguise my sentiments, nor to 
the want of arguments and illustrations to maintain positions which so 
abound in both, that it would require a volume to do them anything 
like justice. I can only hope that truths which, I feel assured, are 
essentially connected with all that we ought to hold most dear, may 
not be weakened in the public estimation by the imperfect manner in 
which I have been, by the object in view, compelled to present them. 

With every caution on my part, I dare not hope, in taking the step 
1 have, to escape the imputation of improper motives ; though I have, 
without reserve, freely expressed my opinions, not regarding whether 
they mighc or might not be popular. I have no reason to believe that 
they are such as will conciliate public favor, but the opposite, which I 
greatly regret, as I have ever placed a high estimate on the good 
opinion of my fellow-citizens. But, be that as it may, I shall, at least, 



1831.] ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF S. CAROLINA. 187 

be sustained by feelings of conscious rectitude. I have formed my 
opinions after the most careful and deliberate examination, with all 
the aids which my reason and experience could furnish ; I have ex- 
pressed them honestly and fearlessly, regardless of their effects per- 
sonally, which, however interesting to me individually, are of too little 
importance to be taken into the estimate, where the liberty and hap- 
piness of our country are so vitally involved. 






# 



CHAPTER VIII. 



Nullification — The Protective System introduced — Act of 1828— Oppo- 
sition in the Southern States — State Interposition proposed — Mr. 
Calhoun's Views — Election of General Jackson — Distribution and 
Protection combined — Dissolution of the Cabinet — Difficulty between 
Mr. Calhoun and General Jackson — Letter to Governor Hamilton — 
Convention in South Carolina — Mr. Calhoun elected a Senator in 
Congress. 



*CJ" 



We now approach the most important and eventful 
period in the life and history of Mr. Calhoun — the period 
of Nullification — in which the great battle between 
State-rights and the Consolidation doctrines of the fed- 
eral party was fought on the floor of Congress. Of the 
former he was the especial champion. He stood forth 
as the prominent advocate of the cherished principles 
of the old republican creed ; and although, in the opinion 
of many, perhaps the most of his former party associates, 
he went beyond what they supposed the design and in- 
tention of those by whom that creed was originally 
formed and adopted, he defended his position with a 
zeal that knew no abatement, and with a resoluteness 
of purpose that left no room to doubt his sincerity. 

In the midst of calumny and detraction he was always 
calm and self-possessed. Though the particular object 
of misrepresentation, he only claimed a hearing for his 
opinions, and if that were denied, he left it to time — that 
true touchstone of merit in men and in things — to test 



1824-32.] THE PROTECTIVE SYSTEM. 189 

their correctness and their importance. Torrents of 
obloquy and abuse were poured upon him without stint 
or favor ; yet, like Galileo exclaiming in the midst of 
his persecutors, indignant at his renunciation of the 
Copernican system, " E pur si muove /"* — so he main- 
tained, in and through all, that the truth and the right 
were on his side. 

The Nullification controversy, as it has been termed, 
grew out of the system of high protective duties long 
contended for by*the manufacturing interest and the 
friends of the American system, and finally established 
by the act of 1828. By the act of 1816, a reduction of 
five per cent, on woollen and cotton goods was made in 
1819 ; and the protectionists forthwith commenced their 
efforts to procure a modification of the law more favor- 
able to their interests. Their exertions were continued 
from year to year, till they were ultimately crowned 
with success, through the efforts, in great part, of Mr. 
Adams and Mr. Clay. The act of 1816 went beyond 
the true revenue limit, but so long as the policy was 
merely to foster and build up domestic manufactures, 
and while the public debt remained unpaid, Mr. Cal- 
houn, and others who entertained similar views, were 
content not to insist upon a reduction of the duties to 
the revenue standard. The debt must be provided for, 
and this, it was probable, would absorb the surplus of 
revenue for a lono- time to come. 

In 1824, the protectionists procured the passage of 
the act of that year increasing the profits of certain 
branches of manufactures already established, and offer- 
ing great inducements for the establishment of others. 

* "And yet, it moves !" 



190 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32 

Three years later — at the session of 1826-7 — " the 
woollens' bill," designed almost exclusively for the bene- 
fit of the manufacturers, was brought before Congress. 
Public attention was now fully aroused to the proceed- 
ings of the manufacturers, and various interests appear- 
ed in the field, each contending for a share of the bene- 
fits to be derived from a high protective tariff. The 
doctrine of temporary protection, partially forgotten in 
1824, was now to be entirely abandoned, and favoritism 
substituted for encouragement. Thefmanufacturers of 
the Eastern states, the iron manufacturers in Pennsyl- 
vania and New Jersey, and the producers of wool and 
hemp in the Northern and Western states generally, 
were all earnestly enlisted in favor of a high tariff, but 
their interests were so often found to be conflicting, that 
harmony of action could not be secured. 

Political considerations at length entered into the 
controversy. The growing popularity of General Jack- 
son filled the friends of Mr. Adams with alarm, and 
when it was seen how many powerful interests at the 
north were arrayed in favor of a high tariff, an effort 
was made to secure their support in the approaching 
canvass, for without their assistance it was certain that 
the administration would not be sustained. A conven- 
tion of the advocates of a protective tariff was therefore 
called and held at Harrisburg, in July, 1827, at which a 
system of high duties was fixed upon, which was satis- 
factory to all the manufacturing interests, but not ac- 
ceptable to the agricultural friends of protection. The 
supporters of Mr. Adams now counted with great con- 
fidence on the election of their candidate, for, said they, 
"if the friends of General Jackson in the tariff states 



1824-32.] BILL OF ABOMINATIONS. 191 

oppose the Harrisburg plan, the electoral votes of those 
states will be lost to him, and his defeat must then cer- 
tainly follow ; and on the other hand, if they support 
the plan, the southern and south-western states will not 
vote for him unless he disavows the proceedings of his 
friends at the north." 

But the friends of General Jackson were not so easi- 
ly entrapped. They elected their speaker in the House 
of Representatives at the session of 1827-8, and obtain- 
ed a majority on the committee on manufactures. A 
bill was then prepared, calculated to favor the wool and 
hemp growers and to satisfy the iron manufacturers, 
but not affording the desired protection to the manufac- 
turers of woollen and cotton goods, though it was after- 
ward arranged so as to be more agreeable to them. In 
this contest for political power, the great principles of 
truth and justice were disregarded and the interests of 
the staple states at the south completely overlooked. 
After a long struggle the act of 1823 was passed by the 
votes of nearly all the friends of a high protective sys- 
tem in Congress. This bill was fitly termed by one of 
its authors "a great error," and by a leading advocate 
of protection for the sake of 'protection, " a bill of abom- 
inations." It imposed a tariff of duties averaging nearly 
fifty per cent, on the imports, and considerations of 
revenue had very little to do with the manner in which 
it was formed, or with its passage. 

Only three representatives from the southern states, 
with the exception of the whole delegation from Ken- 
tucky, who either supported the American System of 
Mr. Clay or were influenced by the protection given to 
hemp, voted for the act of 1828. Its passage elicited 



192 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

a general expression of indignation in the Southern 
states, and most of their legislatures adopted strong 
resolutions condemning it in unqualified terms as being 
unjust, oppressive, and unconstitutional. 

Mr. Calhoun was now regarded with almost filial af- 
fection and reverence by the citizens of his native state, 
and on his return home at the close of the session, he 
was visited by a number of leading and influential men, 
and the question was repeatedly propounded to him — 
what must be done ? His reply was, that they must not 
hazard the election of General Jackson, upon whom he 
relied to counteract the dangerous tendencies of the 
times, and it was better to wait and see whether his ad- 
ministration would not reduce the duties to the revenue 
standard before the public debt was paid, or, at least, 
take the necessary steps to secure that reduction when- 
ever it should be finally discharged. But if they were 
disappointed, then he advised that the unconstitutional 
laws should be resisted, and that a resort should be had 
to state interposition, or, in other words, nullification. 

Resistance had previously been recommended, at a 
public meeting of the citizens of Colleton district held 
in June, 1828, and at other gatherings of the people 
similar sentiments were freely avowed. Mr. Calhoun 
was firmly of the opinion that nullification was the right- 
ful remedy, but his advice of forbearance was followed 
by his friends. He consented, however, to give ex- 
pression to his views, and at the request of a member 
of the legislature, prepared a paper exposing the ob- 
jectionable features of the act of 1828 and the injurious 
effects which must result from it, and pointing out the 
remedy for the evil. Five thousand copies of this paper 



1824-32.] NULLIFICATION RECOMMENDED. 193 

were ordered to be printed by the legislature, which met 
in December, 1828, under the title of " The South Caro- 
lina Exposition and Protest on the subject of the Tariff." 
The legislature then contented itself with passing a res- 
olution declaring the tariff acts of Congress for the 
irotection of domestic manufactures unconstitutional, 
and that they ought to be resisted, and inviting other 
states to cooperate with South Carolina in measures of 
resistance. By this legislature, also, electors were 
chosen who gave the vote of the state to General Jack- 
son and Mr. Calhoun. 

Time wore on. General Jackson was inaugurated, 
but no relief came. The influence of the tariff friends 
of the administration was controlling, and the president 
expressed the opinion that no satisfactory adjustment of 
the tariff could be made, which would not leave a large 
annual surplus beyond what was required by the govern- 
ment for its current service, wherefore he recommended 
the adoption of some plan for its distribution or appor- 
tionment among the states, to be expended on objects 
of internal improvement.* This recommendation ap- 
peared to Mr. Calhoun to be an aggravation of the 
original cause of complaint, and he could see nothing in 
the scheme of distribution but a premium and an in- 
ducement to the friends of a high protective tariff to 
persist in maintaining the system which they had fas- 
tened upon the country. He viewed it as a bribe to 
the states, to secure their support of the system as the 
fixed and settled policy of the national government. 

Meanwhile the friendly relations previously existing 
between General Jackson and Mr. Calhoun had been 

* Annual Messages of 1829 and 1830. 
9 



194 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

interrupted. Mr. Van Buren was secretary of state, 
and both he and Mr. Calhoun were looked upon as can- 
didates for the succession. Their respective friends in 
the cabinet became discontented with each other ; the 
bad feelings which had been engendered, were increased 
by difficulties between their families, and by the absence 
of harmony of opinion in regard to the tariff, and finally 
ended in the resignation of all the secretaries and the 
attorney-general, and the construction of an entire 
new cabinet. This took place in the spring of 1831, 
and from that time Mr. Calhoun was regarded as one 
of the opposers of the administration. He and General 
Jackson were probably too much alike in disposition 
long to agree cordially together, and the feelings of ani- 
mosity cherished by the latter were much heightened 
by the disclosure to him, about this time, of the fact 
that Mr. Calhoun, as a member of Mr. Monroe's cabinet, 
had advised that he should be punished or reprimanded 
for his course during the Seminole campaign, in the 
execution of Arbuthnot and Ambrister. Each possess- 
ed an iron will, and each had inherited many of the 
traits peculiar to their common ancestry. 

It was impossible that the public action of Mr. Cal- 
houn should not be affected by this change in his per- 
sonal and political relations, and it may sometimes have 
so far influenced him as to bias his views and feelings in 
many particulars. Shortly after his resignation of the 
office of Secretary of State Mr. Van Buren was nom- 
inated minister to England, and at the session of 1831- 
32, he was rejected in the Senate by the casting vote 
of the vice-president, Mr. Calhoun, who thought that 
the instructions of the late secretary to Mr. McLane, 



1824-32.] LETTER TO GOVERNOR HAMILTON. 195 

then minister to England, in regard to the West India 
trade, were not consistent with the dignity of the coun- 
try, inasmuch as they proposed an apology, as he thought, 
for the acts of the previous administration. 

In the mean time, Mr. Calhoun had complied with 
the importunities of his numerous friends in South Caro- 
lina, and issued the address heretofore given, dated at 
Fort Hill, in July, 1831. This address was followed by 
the annexed letter to Governor Hamilton, which ap- 
peared in the ensuing year : 

LETTER TO GOVERNOR HAMILTON. 

Fort Hill, August 28th, 1832. 

My Dear Sir — I have received your note of the 31st July, request- 
ing me to give you a fuller development of my views than that con- 
tained in my address last summer, on the right of a state to defend 
her reserved powers against the encroachments of the General Gov- 
ernment. 

As fully occupied as my time is, were it doubly so, the quarter from 
which the request comes, with my deep conviction of the vital impor- 
tance of the subject, would exact a compliance. 

No one can be more sensible than I am that the address of last sum- 
mer fell far short of exhausting the subject. It was, in fact, intended 
as a simple statement of my views. I felt that the independence and 
candor which ought to distinguish one occupying a high public station, 
imposed a duty on me to meet the call for my opinion by a frank and 
full avowal of my sentiments, regardless of consequences. To fulfil 
this duty, and not to discuss the subject, was the object of the address. 
But, in making these preliminary remarks, I do not intend to prepare 
you to expect a full discussion on the present occasion. What I pro- 
pose is, to touch some of the more prominent points that have received 
less of the public attention than their importance seems to me to de- 
mand. 

Strange as the assertion may appear, it is, nevertheless, true, that 
the great difficulty in determining whether a state has the right to de- 
fend her reserved powers against the General Government, or, in fact, 



196 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

any right at all beyond those of a mere corporation, is to bring the 
public mind to realize plain historical facts connected with the origin 
and formation of the government. Till they are fully understood, it 
is impossible that a correct and just view can be taken of the subject. 
In this connection, the first and most important point is to ascertain 
distinctly who are the real authors of the Constitution of the United 
States — whose powers created it — whose voice clothed it with au- 
thority ; and whose agent the government it formed in reality is. At 
this point, I commence the execution of the task which your request 
has imposed. 

The formation and adoption of the Constitution are events so recent, 
and all the connected facts so fully attested, that it would seem im- 
possible that there should be the least uncertainty in relation to them ; 
and yet, judging by what is constantly heard and seen, there are few 
subjects on which the public opinion is more confused. The most in- 
definite expressions are habitually used in speaking of them. Some- 
times it is said that the Constitution was made by the states, and at 
others, as if in contradistinction, by the people, without distinguishing 
between the two very different meanings which may be attached to 
those general expressions ; and this, not in ordinary conversation, but 
hi grave discussions before deliberative bodies, and in judicial investi- 
gations, where the greatest accuracy on so important a point might be 
expected ; particularly as one or the other meaning is intended, con- 
clusions the most opposite must follow, not only in reference to the 
subject of this communication, but as to the nature and character of 
our political system. By a state may be meant either the government 
of a state or the people, as forming a separate and independent com- 
munity ; and by the people, either the American people taken collec- 
tively, as forming one great community, or as the people of the several 
states, forming, as above stated, separate and independent communi- 
ties. These distinctions are essential in the inquiry. If by the people 
be meant the people collectively, and not the people of the several 
states taken separately ; and if it be true, indeed, that the Constitution 
is the work of the American people collectively ; if it originated with 
them, and derives its authority from their will, then there is an end of 
the argument. The right claimed for a state of defending her reserved 
powers against the General Government would be an absurdity. View- 
ing the American people collectively as the source of political power, 
the rights of the states would be mere concessions — concessions from 



1824-32.] LETTER TO GOVERNOR HAMILTON. 197 

the common majority, and to be revoked by them with the same facility 
that they were granted. The states would, on this supposition, bear to 
the Union the same relation that counties do to the states ; and it 
would, in that case, be just as preposterous to discuss the right of in- 
terposition, on the part of a state, against the General Government, as 
that of the counties against the states themselves. That a large 
portion of the people of the United States thus regard the relation be- 
tween the state and the General Government, including many who call 
themselves the friends of State-rights and opponents of consolidation, 
can scarcely be doubted, as it is only on that supposition it can be ex- 
plained that so many of that description should denounce the doctrine 
for which the state contends as so absurd. But, fortunately, the sup- 
position is entirely destitute of truth. So far from the Constitution 
being the work of the American people collectively, no such political 
body either now, or ever did, exist. In that character the people of 
this country never performed a single political act, nor, indeed, can, 
without an entire revolution in all our political relations. 

I challenge an instance. From the beginning, and in all the changes 
of political existence through which we have passed, the people of the 
United States have been united as forming political communities, and 
not as individuals. Even in the first stage of existence, they formed 
distinct colonies, independent of each other, and politically united only 
through the British crown. In their first imperfect union, for the pur- 
pose of resisting the encroachments of the mother-country, they united as 
distinct political communities ; and, passing from their colonial condition, 
in the act announcing their independence to the world, they declared 
themselves, by name and enumeration, free and independent states. In 
that character, they formed the old confederation ; and, when it was pro- 
posed to supersede the articles of the confederation by the present Con- 
stitution, they met in convention as states, acted and voted as states ; 
and the Constitution, when formed, was submitted for ratification to the 
people of the several states : it was ratified by them as states, each 
state for itself; each by its ratification binding its own citizens; the 
parts thus separately binding themselves, and not the whole parts ; to 
which, if it be added, that it is declared in the preamble of the Consti- 
tution to be ordained by the people of the United States, and in the 
article of ratification, when ratified, it is declared " to be binding between 
the states so ratifying!' The conclusion is inevitable, that the Constitu- 
tion is the work of the people of the states, considered as separate and 



198 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

independent political communities; that they are its authors — their 
power created it, their voice clothed it with authority — that the govern- 
ment formed is, in reality, their agent ; and that the Union, of which 
the Constitution is the bond, is a union of states, and not of individuals. 
No one, who regards his character for intelligence and truth, has ever 
ventured directly to deny facts so certain ; but while they are too certain 
for denial, they are also too conclusive in favor of the rights of the states 
for admission. The usual course has been adopted — to elude what can 
neither be denied nor admitted ; and never has the device been more 
successfully practised. By confounding states with state governments, 
and the people of the states with the American people collectively — 
things, as it regards the subject of this communication, totally dissimilar, 
as much so as a triangle and a square — facts of themselves perfectly 
certain and plain, and which, when well understood, must lead to a cor- 
rect conception of the subject, have been involved in obscurity and 
mystery. 

I will next proceed to state some of the results which necessarily 
follow from the facts which have been established. 

The first, and, in reference to the subject of this communication, the 
most important, is, that there is no direct and immediate connection be- 
tween the individual citizens of a state and the General Government. 
The relation between them is through the state. The Union is a union 
of states as communities, and not a union of individuals. As members 
of a state, her citizens were originally subject to no control but that of 
the state, and could be subject to no other, except by the act of the 
state itself. The Constitution was, accordingly, submitted to the states 
for their separate ratification ; and it was only by the ratification of the 
state that its citizens became subject to the control of the General 
Government. The ratification of any other, or all the other states, 
■without its own, could create no connection between them and the Gen- 
eral Government, nor impose on them the slightest obligation. With- 
out the ratification of their own state, they would stand in the same re- 
lation to the General Government as do the citizens or subjects of any 
foreign state ; and we find the citizens of North Carolina and Rhode 
Island actually bearing that relation to the government for some time 
after it went into operation ; these states having, in the first instance, 
declined to ratify. Nor had the act of any individual the least influence 
in subjecting him to the control of the General Government, except as 
it might influence the ratification of the Constitution by bis own state. 



1824-32.] LETTER TO GOVERNOR HAMILTON. 199 

"Whether subject to its control or not, depended wholly on the act of 
the state. His dissent had not the least weight against the assent of 
his state, nor his assent against its dissent. It follows, as a necessary- 
consequence, that the act of ratification bound the state as a community, 
as is expressly declared in the article of the Constitution above quoted, 
and not the citizens of the state as individuals : the latter being bound 
through their state, and in consequence of the ratification of the former. 
Another, and a highly important consequence, as it regards the sub- 
ject under investigation, follows with equal certainty : that, on a ques- 
tion whether a particular power exercised by the General Government 
be granted by the Constitution, it belongs to the state as a member of 
the Union, in her sovereign capacity in convention, to determine defini- 
tively, as far as her citizens are concerned, the extent of the obligation 
which she contracted; and if, in her opinion, the act exercising the 
power be unconstitutional, to declare it null and void, which declaration 
would be obligatory on her citizen*. In coming to this conclusion, it 
may be proper to remark, to prevent misrepresentation, that I do not 
claim for a state the right to abrogate an act of the General Govern- 
ment. It is the Constitution that annuls an unconstitutional act. Such 
an act is of itself void and of no effect. What I claim is the right of 
the state, as far as its citizens are concerned, to declare the extent of the 
obligation, and that such declaration is binding on them — a right, when 
limited to its citizens, flowing directly from the relation of the state to 
the General Government on the one side, and its citizens on the other, 
as already explained, and resting on the most plain and solid reasons. 

Passing over, what of itself might be considered conclusive, the 
obvious principle, that it belongs to the authority which imposed the 
obligation to declare its extent, as far as those are concerned on whom 
the obligation is placed, I shall present a single argument, which of 
itself is decisive. I have already shown that there is no immediate 
connection between the citizens of a state and the General Government, 
and that the relation between them is through the state. I have also 
shown that, whatever obligations were imposed on the citizens, were 
imposed by the act of the state ratifying the Constitution. A similar 
act by the same authority, made with equal solemnity, declaring the 
extent of the obligation, must, as far as they are concerned, be of equal 
authority. I speak, of course, on the supposition that the right has not 
been transferred, as it will hereafter be shown that it has not. A citi- 
zen would have no more right to question the one than he would have 



200 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

the other declaration. They rest on the same authority : and as he was 
bound bv the declaration of his state assenting to the Constitution, 
whether he assented or dissented, so would he be equally bound by a 
declaration declaring the extent of that assent, whether opposed to, or 
in favor of, such declaration. In this conclusion I am supported by 
analogy. The case of a treaty between sovereigns is strictly analogous. 
There, as in this case, the state contracts for the citizen or subject; 
there, as in this, the obligation is imposed by the state, and is indepen- 
dent of his will ; and there, as in this, the declaration of the state, deter- 
mining the extent of the obligation contracted, is- obligatory on him, as 
much so as the treaty itself. 

Having now, I trust, established the very important point that the 
declaration of a state, as to the extent of the power granted, is obliga- 
tory on its citizens, I shall next proceed to consider the effects of such 
declarations in reference to the General Government ; a question which 
necessarily involves the consideration of the relation between it and the 
states, It has been shown that the people of the states, acting as dis- 
tinct and independent communities, are the authors of the Constitution, 
and that the General Government was organized and ordained by them 
to execute its powers. The government, then, with all its departments, 
is, in fact, the agent of the states, constituted to execute their joint will, 
as expressed in the Constitution. 

In using the term agent, I do not intend to derogate in any degree 
from its character as a government. It is as truly and properly a gov- 
ernment as are the state governments themselves. I have applied it 
simply because it strictly belongs to the relation between the General Gov- 
ernment and the states, as, in fact, it does also to that between a state 
and its own government. Indeed, according to our theory, governments 
are in their nature but trusts, and those appointed to administer them 
trustees or agents to execute the trust powers. The sovereignty re- 
sides elsewhere — in the people, not in the government ; and with us, 
the people mean the people of the several states originally formed into 
thirteen distinct and independent communities, and now into twenty- 
four. Politically speaking, in reference to our own system, there are 
no other people. The General Government, as well as those of the 
states, is but the organ of their power : the latter, that of their re- 
spective states, through which are exercised separately that portion of 
power not delegated by the Constitution, and in the exercise of which 
each state has a local and peculiar interest ; the former, the joint orgaa 



1824-32.] LETTER TO GOVERNOR HAMILTON. 201 

of all the states confederated into one general community, and through 
which they jointly and concurringly exercise the delegated powers, in 
which all have a common interest. Thus viewed, the Constitution of 
the United States, with the government it created, is truly and strictly 
the Constitution of each state, as much so as its own particular Consti- 
tution and government, ratified by the same authority, in the same 
mode, and having, as far as its citizens are concerned, its powers and 
obligations from the same source, differing only in the aspect, under 
which I am considering the subject, in the plighted faith of the state to 
its co-states, and of which, as far as its citizens are considered, the 
state, in the last resort, is the exclusive judge. 

Such, then, is the relation between the state and General Govern- 
ment, in whatever light we may consider the Constitution, whether as 
a compact between the states, or of the nature of the legislative en- 
actment by the joint aud concurring authority of the states in their 
high sovereignty. In whatever light it may be viewed, I hold it as 
necessarily resulting, that, in the case of a power disputed between 
them, the government, as the agent, lias no right to enforce its con- 
struction against the construction of the state as one of the sovereign 
parties to the Constitution, any more than the state government would 
have against the people of the state in their sovereign capacity, the 
relation being the same between them. That such would be the case 
between agent and principal in the ordinary transactions of life, no one 
will doubt, nor will it be possible to assign a reason why it is not as 
applicable to the case of government as to that of individuals. The 
principle, in fact, springs from the relation itself, and is applicable to it 
in all its forms and characters. It may, however, be proper to notice 
a distinction between the case of a single principal and his agent, and 
that of several principals and their joint agent, which might otherwise 
cause some confusion. In both cases, as between the agent and a prin- 
cipal, the construction of the principal, whether he be a single principal 
or one of several, is equally conclusive ; but, in the latter case, both 
the principal and the agent bear relation to the other principals, which 
must be taken into the estimate, in order to understand fully all the 
results which may grow out of the contest for power between them. 
Though the construction of the principal is conclusive against the joint 
agent, as between them, such is not the case between him and his as- 
sociates. They both have an equal right of construction, and it would 
be the duty of the agent to bring the subject before the principal to be 

9* 



202 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32, 

adjusted , according to the terms of the instrument of association, and 
of the Principal to submit to such adjustment. In such cases the con- 
tract itself is the law, which must determine the relative rights and 
powers of the parties to it. The General Government is a case of 
joint agency — the joint agent of the twenty-four sovereign states. It 
would be its duty, according to the principles established in such cases, 
instead of attempting to enforce its construction of its powers against 
that of the states, to bring the subject before the states themselves, in 
the only form which, according to the provision of the Constitution, it 
can be — by a proposition to amend, in the manner prescribed in the in- 
strument, to be acted on by them in the only mode they can, by ex- 
pressly granting or withholding the contested power. Against this 
conclusion there can be raised but one objection, — that the states have 
surrendered or transferred the right in question. If such be the fact, 
there ought to be no difficulty in establishing it. The grant of the 
powers delegated is contained in a written instrument, drawn up with 
great care, and adopted with the utmost deliberation. It provides that 
the powers not granted are reserved to the states and the people. If 
it be surrendered, let the grant be shown, and the controversy will be 
terminated ; and, surely, it ought to be shown, plainly and clearly 
shown, before the states are asked to admit what, if true, would not 
only divest them of a right which, under all its forms, belongs to the 
principal over his agent, unless surrendered, but which cannot be sur- 
rendered without in effect, and for all practical purposes, reversing the 
relation between them ; putting the agent in the place of the princi- 
pal, and the principal in that of the agent; and which would degrade 
the states from the high and sovereign condition which they have ever 
held, under every form of their existence, to be mere subordinate and 
dependent corporations of the government of its own creation. But, 
instead of showing any such grant, not a provision can be found in the 
Constitution authorizing the General Government to exercise any con- 
trol whatever over a state by force, by veto, by judicial process, or in 
any other form — a most important omission, designed, and not acciden- 
tal, and, as will be shown in the course of these remarks, omitted by 
the dictates of the profoundest wisdom. 

The journal and proceedings of the Convention which formed the 
Constitution afford abundant proof that there was in the body a pow- 
erful party, distinguished for talents and influence, intent on obtaining, 
for the General Government, a grant of the very power in question, 



1824-32.] LETTER TO GOVERNOR HAMILTON. 203 

and that they attempted to effect this object in all possible ways, but 
fortunately, without success. The first project of a Constitution sub- 
mitted to the Convention (Governor Randolph's) embraced a proposi- 
tion to grant power " to negative all laws contrary, in the opinion of 
the National Legislature, to the articles of the Union, or any treaty 
subsisting under the authority of the Union ; and to call forth the force 
of the Union against any member of the Union failing to fulfil his 
duty under the articles thereof." The next project submitted (Charles 
Pinckney's) contained a similar provision. It proposed, "that the 
Legislature of the United States should have the power to revise the 
laws of the several states that may be supposed to infringe the powers 
exclusively delegated by this Constitution to Congress, and to negative 
and annul such as do.'" The next was submitted by Mr. Patterson, of 
New Jersey, which provided, " if any state, or body of men in any 
state, shall oppose or prevent the carrying into execution such acts or 
treaties" (of the Union), " the federal executive shall be authorized to 
call forth the powers of the confederated states, or so much thereof as 
shall be necessary to enforce, or compel the obedience to such acts, or 
observance of such treaties." General Hamilton's next succeeded, 
which declared " all laws of the particular states contrary to the Con- 
stitution or laws of the United States, to be utterly void ; and, the 
better to prevent such laws being passed, the governor or president of 
each state shall be appointed by the General Government, and shall 
have a negative on the laws about to be passed in the state of which 
he is governor or president." 

At a subsequent period, a proposition was moved and referred to a 
committee to provide that " the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall 
extend to all controversies between the United States and any indi- 
vidual state;" and, at a still later period, it was moved to grant power 
" to negative all laws passed by the several states interfering, in the 
opinion of the Legislature, with the general harmony and interest of 
the Union, provided that two thicds of the members of each house 
assent to the same," which, after an ineffectual attempt to commit, was 
withdrawn. 

I do not deem it necessary to trace through the journals of the Con- 
vention the fate of these various propositions. It is sufficient that they 
were moved and failed, to prove conclusively, in a manner never to be 
reversed, that the Convention which framed the Constitution was op- 
posed to granting the power to the General Government in any form, 



204 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32, 

through any of its departments, legislative, executive, or judicial, to 
coerce or control a state, though proposed in all conceivable modes, and 
sustained by the most talented and influential members of the body. 
This, one would suppose, ought to settle forever the question of the sur- 
render or transfer of the power under consideration ; and such, in fact, 
would be the case, were the opinion of a large portion of the community 
not biased, as, in fact, it is, by interest. A majority have almost always 
a direct interest in enlarging the power of the government, and the in- 
terested adhere to power with a pertinacity which bids defiance to 
truth, though sustained by evidence as conclusive as mathematical dem- 
onstration ; and, accordingly, the advocates of the powers of the Gen- 
eral Government, notwithstanding the impregnable strength of the proof 
to the contrary, have boldly claimed, on construction, a power, the grant 
of which was so perseveringly sought and so sternly resisted by the 
Convention. They rest the claim on the provisions in the Constitution 
which declare "that this Constitution, and the laws made in pursuance 
thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land," and that u the judicial 
power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this 
Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which 
shall be made, under their authority." 

I do not propose to go into a minute examination of these provision-;?. 
They have been so frequently and so ably investigated, and it lias been 
bo clearly shown that they do not warrant the assumption of the power 
claimed for the government, that I do not deem it necessary. I shall; 
therefore, confine myself to a few detached remarks. 

I have already stated that a distinct proposition was made to confer 
the very power in controversy on the Supreme Court, which failed -, 
which of itself ought to overrule the assumption of the power by con- 
struction, unless sustained by the most conclusive arguments • but when 
it is added that this proposition was moved (20th August) subsequent 
to the period of adopting the provisions, above cited, vesting the court 
with its present powers (18th July), and that an effort was made, at a 
still later period (23d August), to invest Congress with a negative on 
all state laws which, in its opinion, might interfere with the general in- 
terest and harmony of the Union, the argument would seem too con- 
clusive against the powers of the court to be overruled by construction, 
however strong. 

Passing by, however, this, and also the objection that the terms cases 
in law and equity are technical, embracing only questions between 



1824-32.] LETTER TO GOVERNOR HAMILTON. 205 

parties amenable to the process of the court, and, of course, excluding 
questions between the states and the General Government— an argu- 
ment which has never been answered— there remains another objection 
perfectly conclusive'. 

The construction which would confer on the Supreme Court the power 
in question, rests on the ground that the Constitution has conferred on 
that tribunal the high and important right of deciding on the constitu- 
tionality of laws. That it possesses this power I do not deny, but I do 
utterly deny that it is conferred by the Constitution, either by the pro- 
visions above cited, or any other. It is a power derived from the ne- 
cessity of the case ; and, so far from being possessed by the Supreme 
Court exclusively or peculiarly, it not only belongs to every court of the 
country, high or low, civil or criminal, but to all foreign courts, before 
which a case may be brought involving the construction of a law which 
may conflict with the provisions of the Constitution. The reason is plain. 
Where there are two sets of rules prescribed in reference to the same 
subject, one by a higher and the other by an inferior authority, the 
judicial tribunal called in to decide on the case must unavoidably deter- 
mine, should they conflict, which is the law ; and that necessity compels 
it to decide that the rule prescribed by the inferior power, if in its 
opinion inconsistent with that of the higher, is void, be it a conflict be- 
tween the Constitution and a law, or between a charter and the by daws 
of a corporation, or any other higher and inferior authority. The prin- 
ciple and source of authority are the same in all such cases. Being de- 
rived from necessity, it is restricted within its limits, and cannot pass 
an inch beyond the narrow confines of deciding in a case before the 
court, and, of course, between parties amenable to its process, excluding 
thereby political questions, which of the two is, in reality, the law, the 
act of Congress or the Constitution, when on their face they are incon- 
sistent ; and yet, from this resulting limited power, derived from ne- 
cessity, and held in common with every court in the world which, by 
possibility, may take cognizance of a case involving the interpretation 
of our Constitution and laws, it is attempted to confer on the Supreme 
Court a power which would work a thorough and radical change in our 
system, and which, moreover, was positively refused by the Conven- 
tion. 

The opinion that the General Government has the right to enforce its 
construction of its powers against a state, in any mode whatever, is, in 
truth, founded on a fundamental misconception of our system. At the 



20G JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

bottom of this, and, in fact, almost every other misconception as to the 
relation between the states and the General Government, lurks the 
radical error, that the latter is a national, and not, as in reality it is, a 
confederated government ; and that it derives its powers from a higher 
source than the states. There are thousands influenced by these im- 
pressions without being conscious of it, and who, while they believe them- 
selves to be opposed to consolidation, have infused into their conception 
of our Constitution almost all the ingredients which inter into that form 
of government. The striking difference between the present govern- 
ment and that under the old confederation (I speak of governments as 
distinct from constitutions) has mainly contributed to this dangerous im- 
pression. But, however dissimilar their governments, the present Con- 
stitution is as far removed from consolidation, and is as strictly and as 
purely a confederation, as the one 'which it superseded. 

Like the old confederation, it was formed and ratified by state au- 
tboritv. The only difference in this particular is, that one was ratified 
bv the people of the states, and the other by the state governments ; 
one forming strictly a union of the state governments, the other of the 
states themselves ; one, of the agents exercising the powers of sove- 
reignty, and the other of the sovereigns themselves ; but both were 
unions of political bodies, as distinct from a union of the people individ- 
ually. They are, indeed, both confederations, but the present iri a 
higher and purer sense than that which it succeeded, just as the act of 
a sovereign is higher and more perfect than that of his agent ; and it 
was, doubtless, in reference to this difference that the preamble of the 
Constitution, and the address of the Convention laying the Constitution 
before Congress, speak of consolidating and perfecting the Union ; yet 
this difference, which, while it elevated the General Government in re- 
lation to the state governments, placed it more immediately in the 
relation of the creature and agent of the states themselves, by a natural 
misconception, has been the principal cause of the impression so preva- 
lent of the inferiority of the states to the General Government, and of 
the consequent right of the latter to coerce the former. Raised from 
below to the same level with the state governments, it was conceived 
to be placed above the states themselves. 

I have now r , I trust, conclusively shown that a state has a right, in 
her sovereign capacity, in convention, to declare an unconstitutional act 
of Congress to be null and void, and that such declarations would be 
obligatory on her citizens, as highly so as the Constitution itself, and 



1824-32.] LETTER TO GOVERNOR HAMILTON. 207 

conclusive against the General Government, which would have no right 
to enforce its construction of its powers against that of the state. 

I next propose to consider the practical effect of the exercise of this 
high and important right— which, as the great conservative principle 
of our system, is known under the various names of nullification, inter- 
position, and state veto — in reference to its operation viewed under 
different aspects : nullification, as declaring null an unconstitutional act 
of the General Government, as far as the state is concerned ; inter- 
position, as throwing the shield of protection between the citizens of a 
state and the encroachments of the Government; and veto, as arrest- 
ins; or inhibiting its unauthorized acts within the limits of the state. 

The practical effect, if the right was fully recognized, would be plain 
and simple, and has already, in a great measure, been anticipated. If 
the state has a right, there must, of necessity, be a corresponding obli- 
gation on/the part of the General Government to acquiesce in its exer- 
cise; and, of course, it would be its duty to abandon the power, at 
least as far as the state is concerned, to compromise the difficulty, or 
apply to the states themselves, according to the form prescribed in the 
Constitution, to obtain the power by a grant. If granted, acquies- 
cence, then, would be a duty on the part of the state ; and, in that event, 
the contest would terminate in converting a doubtful constructive 
power into one positively granted ; but, should it not be granted, no 
alternative would remain for the General Government but a com- 
promise or its permanent abandonment. In either event, the contro- 
versy would be closed and the Constitution fixed : a result of the 
utmost importance to the steady operation of the government and the 
stability of the system, and which can never be attained, under its pres- 
ent operation, without the recognition of the right, as experience has 
shown. 

From the adoption of the Constitution, we have had but one con- 
tinued agitation of constitutional questions embracing some of the 
most important powers exercised by the government ; and yet, in spito 
of all the ability and force of argument displayed in the various dis- 
cussions, backed by the high authority claimed for the Supreme Court 
to adjust such controversies, not a single constitutional question, of a 
political character, which has ever been agitated during this long 
period, has been settled in the public opinion, except that of the uncon- 
stitutionality of the Alien and Sedition Law ; and, what is remarkable, 
that was settled against the decision of the Supreme Court. The tend- 



208 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

ency is to increase, and not diminish, this conflict for power. New 
questions are yearly added without diminishing the old; while the con- 
test becomes more obstinate as the list increases, and, what is highly 
ominous, more sectional. It is impossible that the government can last 
under this increasing diversity of opinion, and growing uncertainty as 
to its power in relation to the most important subjects of legislation ; 
and equally so, that this dangerous state can terminate without a 
power somewhere to compel, in effect, the government to abandon, 
doubtful constructive powers, or to convert them into positive grants 
by an amendment of the Constitution ; in a word, to substitute the 
positive grants of the parties themselves for the constructive powers 
interpolated by the agents. Nothing short of this, in a system con- 
structed as ours is, with a double set of agents, one for local and the 
other for general purposes, can ever terminate the conflict for power, 
or give uniformity and stability to its action. 

Such would be the practical and happy operation were the right 
recognized ; but the case is far otherwise ; and as the right is not only 
denied, but violently opposed, the General Government, so far from 
acquiescing in its exercise, and abandoning the power, as it ought, may 
endeavor, by all the means within its command, to enforce its construc- 
tion against that of the state. It is under this aspect of the question 
that I now propose to consider the practical effect of the exercise of 
the right, with the view to determine which of the two, the state or 
the General Government, must prevail in the conflict ; which compels 
me to revert to some of the grounds already established. 

I have already shown that the declaration of nullification would be 
obligatory on the citizens of the state, as much so, in fact, as its decla- 
ration ratifying the Constitution, resting, as it does, on the same basis. 
It would to them be the highest possible evidence that the power con- 
tested was not granted, and, of course, that the act of the General 
Government was unconstitutional. They would be bound, in all the 
relations of life, private and political, to respect and obey it ; and, when 
called upon as jurymen, to render their verdict accordingly, or, as 
judges, to pronounce judgment in conformity to it. The right of jury 
trial is secured by the Constitution (thanks to the jealous spirit of 
liberty, doubly secured and fortified); and, with this inestimable right 
— inestimable, not only as an essential portion of the judicial tribunals 
of the country, but infinitely more so, considered as a popular, and still 
more, a local representation, in that department of the government 



1824-32.] LETTER TO GOVERNOR HAMILTON. 209 

which, without it, would be the farthest removed from the control of 
the people, and a fit instrument to sap the foundation of the system — 
with, I repeat, this inestimable right, it would be impossible for the 
General Government, within the limits of the state, to execute, legally, 
the act nullified, or any other passed with a view to enforce it ; while, 
on the other hand, the state would be able to enforce, legally and 
peaceably, its declaration of nullification. Sustained by its court and 
juries, it would calmly and quietly, but successfully, meet every effort 
of the General Government to enforce its claim of power. The result 
would be inevitable. Before the judicial tribunal of the country, the 
state must prevail, unless, indeed, jury trial could be eluded by the 
refinement of the court, or by some other device ; which, however, 
guarded as it is by the ramparts of the Constitution, would, I hold, be 
impossible. The attempt to elude, should it be made, would itself be 
unconstitutional; and, in turn, would be annulled by the sovereign 
voice of the state. Nor would the right of appeal to the Supreme 
Court, under the judiciary act, avail the General Government. If 
taken, it would but end in a new trial, and that in another verdict 
against the government ; but whether it may be taken, would be op- 
tional with the state. The court itself has decided that a copy of the 
record is requisite to review a judgment of a state court, and, if neces- 
sary, the state would take the precaution to prevent, by proper enact- 
ments, any means of obtaining a copy. But if obtained, what would 
it avail against the execution of the penal enactments of the state, in- 
tended to enforce the declaration of nullification ? The judgment of 
the state court would be pronounced and executed before the possibility of 
a reversal, and executed, too, without responsibility incurred by any one. 

Beaten before the courts, the General Government would be com- 
pelled to abandon its unconstitutional pretensions, or resort to force : 
a resort, the difficulty (I was about to say, the impossibility) of which 
would very soon fully manifest itself, should folly or madness ever 
make the attempt. 

In considering this aspect of the controversy, I pass over the fact 
that the General Government has no right to resort to force against a 
s t a te — to coerce a sovereign member of the Union — which, I trust, I 
have established beyond all possible doubt. Let it, however, be deter- 
mined to use force, and the difficulty would be insurmountable, unless, 
indeed, it be also determined to set aside the Constitution, and to sub- 
vert the system to its foundations. 



210 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

Against whom would it be applied ? Congress has, it is true, the 
right to call forth the militia " to execute the laws and suppress insur- 
rection ;" but there would be no law resisted, unless, indeed, it be called 
resistance for the juries to refuse to find, and the courts to render 
judgment, in conformity to the wishes of the General Government ; no 
insurrection to suppress; no armed force to reduce; not a sword un- 
sheathed ; not a bayonet raised ; none, absolutely none, on whom force 
could be used, except it be on the unarmed citizens engaged peaceably 
and quietly in their daily occupations. 

No one would be guilty of treason (" levying war against the United 
States, adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort"), or any 
other crime made penal by the Constitution or the laws of the United 
States. 

To suppose that force could be called in, implies, indeed, a great 
mistake, both as to the nature of our government and that of the con- 
troversy. It would be a legal and constitutional contest — a conflict of 
moral, and not physical force — a trial of constitutional, not military 
power, to be decided before the judicial tribunals of the country, and 
not on the field of battle. In such contest, there would be no obiect for 
force, but those peaceful tribunals — nothing on which it could be 
employed, but in putting down courts and juries, and preventing the 
execution of judicial process. Leave these untouched, and all the 
militia that could be called forth, backed by a regular force often times 
the number of our small, but gallant and patriotic army, could have not 
the slightest effect on the result of the controversy ; but subvert these 
by an armed body, and you subvert the very foundation of this our 
free, constitutional, and legal system of government, and rear in its 
place a military despotism. 

Feeling the force of these difficulties, it is proposed, with the view, I 
suppose, of disembarrassing the operation, as much as possible, of the 
troublesome interference of courts and juries, to change the scene of 
coercion from land to water ; as if the government could have one 
particle more right to coerce a state by water than by land ; but, unless 
I am greatly deceived, the difficulty on that element will not be much 
less than on the other. The jury trial, at least the local jury trial 
(the trial by the vicinage), may, indeed, be evaded there, but in its 
place other, and not much less formidable, obstacles must be encoun- 
tered. 

There can be but two modes of coercion resorted to by water — 



1824-32.] LETTER TO GOVERNOR HAMILTON 211 

blockade and abolition of the ports of entry of the state, accompanied 
by penal enactments, authorizing seizures for entering the waters of the 
state. If the former be attempted, there will be other parties besides 
the General Government and the state. Blockade is a belligerent 
right : it presupposes a state of war, and, unless there be war (war in 
due form, as prescribed by the Constitution), the order for blockade 
would not be respected by other nations or their subjects. Their 
vessels would proceed directly for the blockaded port, with certain 
prospects of gain ; if seized under the order of blockade, through the 
claim of indemnity against the General Government ; and, if not, by a 
profitable market, without the exaction of duties. 

The other mode, the abolition of the ports of entry of the state, 
would also have its difficulties. The Constitution provides that "no 
preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to 
the ports of one state over those of another ; nor shall vessels bound to 
or from one state be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another :" 
provisions too clear to be eluded even by the force of construction. 
There will be another difficulty. If seizures be made in port, or within 
the distance assigned by the laws of nations as the limits of a state, the 
trial must be in the state, with all the embarrassments of its courts and 
juries ; while beyond the ports and the distance to which I have 
referred, it would be difficult to point out any principle by which a 
foreign vessel, at least, could be seized, except as an incident to the 
right of blockade, and, of course, with all the difficulties belonging to 
that mode of coercion. 

But there yet remains another, and, I doubt not, insuperable barrier, 
to be found in the judicial tribunals of the Union, against all the 
schemes of introducing force, whether by land or water. Though I 
cannot concur in the opinion of those who regard the Supreme Court as 
the mediator appointed by the Constitution between the states and the 
General Government ; and though I cannot doubt there is a natural bias 
on its part towards the powers of the latter, yet I must greatly lower 
my opinion of that high and important tribunal for intelligence, justice, 
and attachment to the Constitution, and particularly of that pure and 
upright magistrate who has so long, and with such distinguished honor 
to himself and the Union, presided over its deliberations, with all the 
weight that belongs to an intellect of the first order, united with the 
most spotless integrity, to believe, for a moment, that an attempt so 
plainly and manifestly unconstitutional as a resort to force would be i -* 



212 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

such a contest, could be sustained by the sanction of its authority. In 
■whatever form force may be used, it must present questions for legal 
adjudication. If in the shape of blockade, the vessels seized under it 
must be condemned, and thus would be presented the question of prize 
or no prize, and, with it, the legality of the blockade ; if in that of a 
repeal of the acts establishing ports of entries in the state, the legality 
of the seizure must be determined, and that would bring up the ques- 
tion of the constitutionality of giving a preference to the ports of one 
state over those of another ; and so, if we pass from water to land, we 
will find every attempt there to substitute force for law must, in like 
manner, come under the review of the courts of the Union ; and the 
unconstitutionality would be so glaring, that the executive and legisla- 
tive departments, in their attempt to coerce, should either make an 
attempt so lawless and desperate, would be without the support of the 
judicial department. I will not pursue the question farther, as I hold 
it perfectly clear that, so long as a state retains its federal relations ; so 
lonsr, in a word, as it continues a member of the Union, the contest 
between it and the General Government must be before the courts and 
juries ; and every attempt, in whatever form, whether by land or water, 
to substitute force as the arbiter in their place, must fail. The uncon- 
stitutionality of the attempt would be so open and palpable, that it 
would be impossible to sustain it. 

There is, indeed, one view, and one only, of the contest in which force 
could be employed ; but that view, as between the parties, would 
supersede the Constitution itself: that nullification is secession, and 
would, consequently, place the state, as to the others, in the relation of 
a foreign state. Such, clearly, would be the effect of secession ; but it 
is equally clear that it would place the state beyond the pale of all her 
federal relations, and, thereby, all control on the part of the other states 
over her. She would stand to them simply in the relation of a foreign 
state, divested of all federal connection, and having none other between 
them but those belonging to the laws of nations. Standing thus towards 
one another, force might, indeed, be employed against a state, but it 
must be a belligerent force, preceded by a declaration of war, and 
carried on with all its formalities. Such would be the certain effect of 
secession ; and if nullification be secession — if it be but a different name 
for the same thing — such, too, must be its effect ; which presents the 
highly important question, Are they, in fact, the same ? on the decision 
of which depends the question whether it be a peaceable and constitu- 



1824-32.] LETTER TO GOVERNOR HAMILTON. 213 

tional remedy, that may be exercised without terminating the federal 
relations of the state or not. 

I am aware that there is a considerable and respectable portion of 
our state, with a very large portion of the Union, constituting, in fact, a 
great majority, who are of the opinion that they are the same thing, 
differing only in name, and who, under that impression, denounce it as 
the most dangerous of all doctrines ; and yet, so far from being the 
same, they are, unless, indeed, I am greatly deceived, not only perfectly 
distinguishable, but totally dissimilar in their nature, their object, and 
effect ; and that, so far from deserving the denunciation, so properly 
belonging to the act with which it is confounded, it is, in truth, the 
highest and most precious of all the rights of the states, and essential to 
preserve that very Union, for the supposed effect of destroying wliich 
it is so bitterly anathematized. 

I shall now proceed to make good my assertion of their total dis- 
similarity. 

First, they are wholly dissimilar in their nature. One has reference 
to the parties themselves, and the other to their agents. Secession is a 
withdrawal from the Union: a separation from partners, and, as far as 
depends on the member withdrawing, a dissolution of the partnership. 
It presupposes an association : a union of several states or individuals 
for a common object. Wherever these exist, secession may ; and where 
they do not, it cannot. ISaulification, on the contrary, presupposes the 
relation of principal arid agent : the one granting a power to be ex- 
ecuted, the other, appointed by him with authority to execute it ; and 
is simply a declaration on the part of the principal, made in due form, 
that an act of the agent transcending his power is null and void. It is 
a right belonging exclusively to the relation between principal and 
agent, to be found wherever it exists, and in all its forms, between sev- 
eral, or an association of principals, and their joint agents, as well as 
between a single principal andhis agent. 

The difference in their ohject is no less striking than in their nature. 
The object of secession is to free the withdrawing member from the 
obligation of the association or union, and is applicable to cases where 
the object of the association or union has failed, either by an abuse of 
power on the part of its members, or other causes. Its direct and im- 
mediate object, as it concerns the withdrawing member, is the dissolution 
of the association or union, as far as it is concerned. On the contrary, 
the object of nullification is to confine the agent within the limits of his 



214 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

powers, by arresting his acts transcending them, not with the view 
of destroying the delegated or trust power, but to preserve it, by compel- 
ling the agent to fulfil the object for which the agency or trust was cre- 
ated; and is applicable only to cases where the trust or delegated powers 
are transcended on the part of the agent. Without the power of seces- 
sion, an association or union, formed for the common good of all the 
members, might prove ruinous to some, by the abuse of power on the 
part of the others ; and without nullification the agent might, under 
color of construction, assume a power never intended to be delegated, 
or to convert those delegated to objects never intended to be compre- 
hended in the trust, to the ruin of the principal, or, in case of a joint 
agency, to the ruin of some of the principals. Each has, thus, its ap- 
propriate object, but objects in their nature very dissimilar ; so much 
so, that, in case of an association or union, where the powers are del- 
egated to be executed by an agent, the abuse of power, on the part of 
the agent, to the injury of one or more of the members, would not 
justify secession on their part. The rightful remedy in that case would 
be nullification. There would be neither right nor pretext to secede : 
not right, because secession is applicable only to the acts of the mem- 
bers of the association or union, and not to the act of the agent ; nor 
pretext, because there is another, and equally efficient remedy, short 
of the dissolution of the association or union, which can only be justi- 
fied by necessity. Nullification may, indeed, be succeeded by secession. 
In the case stated, should the other members undertake to grant the 
power nullified, and should the nature of the power be such as to defeat 
the object of the association or union, at least as far as the member nul- 
lifying is concerned, it would then become an abuse of power on the 
part of the principals, and thus present a case where secession would 
apply; but in no other could it be justified, except it be for a failure 
of the association or union to effect the object for which it was created, 
independent of any abuse of power. 

It now remains to show that their effect is as dissimilar as their 
nature or object. 

Nullification leaves the members of the association or union in the 
condition it found them — subject to all its burdens, and entitled to all 
its advantages, comprehending the member nullifying as well as the 
others — its object being, not to destroy, but to preserve, as has been 
stated. It simply arrests the act of the agent, as far as the principal 
is concerned, leaving in every other respect the operation of the joint 



1824-32.] LETTER TO GOVERNOR HAMILTON. 215 

concern as before ; secession, on the contrary, destroys, as far as the 
withdrawing member is concerned, the association or union, and re- 
stores him to the relation he occupied towards the other members be- 
fore the existence of the association or union. He loses the benefit, 
but is released from the burden and control, and can no longer be 
dealt with, by his former associates, as one of its members. 

Such are clearly the differences between them — differences so 
marked, that, instead of being identical, as supposed, they form a con- 
trast in all the aspects in which they cap be regarded. The applica- 
tion of these remarks to the political association or Union of these 
twenty-four states and the General Government, their joint agent, is 
too obvious, after what has been already said, to require ai^ additional 
illustration, and I will dismiss this part of the subject with a single 
additional remark. 

There are many who acknowledge the right of a state to secede, but 
deny its right to nullify ; and yet, it seems impossible to admit the one 
without admitting the other. They both presuppose the same struc- 
ture of the government, that it is a Union of the states, as forming 
political communities, the same right on the part of the states, as mem- 
bers of the Union, to determine for their citizens the extent of the 
powers delegated and those reserved, and, of course, to decide whether 
the Constitution has or has not been violated. The simple difference, 
then, between those who admit secession and deny nullification, and 
those who admit both, is, that one acknowledges that the declaration 
of a state pronouncing that the Constitution has been violated, and is, 
therefore, null and void, would be obligatory on her citizens, and would 
arrest all the acts of the government within the limits of the state ; 
while they deny that a similar declaration, made by the same authority, 
and in the same manner, that an act of the government has tran- 
scended its powers, and that it is, therefore, null and void, would have 
any obligation ; while the other acknowledges the obligation in both 
cases. The one admits that the declaration of a state assenting to the 
Constitution bound her citizens, and that her declaration can unbind 
them ; but denies that a similar declaration, as to the extent she has. in 
fact, bound them, has any obligatory force on them ; while the other 
gives equal force to the declaration in the several cases. The one de- 
nies the obligation, where the object is to preserve the Union in the 
only way it can be, by confining the government, formed to execute the 
trust powers, strictly within their limits, and to the objects for which 



216 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

they were delegated, though they give full force where the ohject is to 
destroy the Union itself ; while the other, in giving equal weight to 
both, prefers the one because it preserves and rejects the other because it 
destroys; and yet the former is the Union, and the latter the disunion 
party ! And all this strange distinction originates, as far as I can 
judge, in attributing to nullification what belongs exclusively to seces- 
sion. The difficulty as to the former, it seems, is, that a state cannot 
be in and out of the Union at the same time. 

This is, indeed, true, if applied to secession — the throwing off the 
authority of the Union itself To nullify the Constitution, if I may be 
pardoned the solecism, would, indeed, be tantamount to disunion; and, 
as applied to such an act, it would be true that a state could not be in 
and out of the Union at the same time ; but the act would be seces- 
sion. 

But to apply it to nullification, properly understood, the object of 
which, instead of resisting or diminishing the powers of the Union, is 
to preserve them as they are, neither increased nor diminished, and 
thereby the Union itself (for the Union may be as effectually de- 
stroyed by increasing as by diminishing its powers — by consolidation, 
as by disunion itself), would be, I would say, had I not great respect 
for many who do thus apply it, egregious trifling with a grave, and 
deeply-important constitutional subject. 

I might here finish the task which your request imposed, having, I 
trust, demonstrated, beyond the power of refutation, that a state has 
the right to defend her reserved powers against the encroachments of 
the General Government ; and I may add that the right is, in its 
nature, peaceable, consistent with the federal relations of the state, 
and perfectly efficient, whether contested before the courts, or at- 
tempted to be resisted by force. But there is another aspect of the 
subject not yet touched, without adverting to which, it is impossible to 
understand the full effects of nullification, or the real character of our 
political institutions: I allude to the power which the states, as a con- 
federated body, have acquired directly over each other, and on which I 
will now proceed to make some remark^, though, I fear, at the hazard 
of fatiguing you. 

Previous to the adoption of the present Constitution, no power could 
be exercised over any state by any other, or all of the states, without 
its own consent; and we, accordingly, find that the old confederation 
and the present Constitution were both submitted for ratification to 



1824-32.] LETTER TO GOVERNOR HAMILTON. 217 

each of the states, and that each ratified for itself, and was bound only 
in consequence of its own particular ratification, as has been already 
stated. The present Constitution has made, in this particular, a most 
important modification in their condition. I allude to the provision 
which gives validity to amendments of the Constitution when ratified 
by three fourths of the states — a provision which has not attracted as 
much attention as its importance deserves. "Without it, no change 
could have been made in the Constitution, unless with the unanimous 
consent of all the states, in like manner as it was adopted. This provi- 
sion, then, contains a highly-important concession by each to all of the 
states, of a portion of the original and inherent right of self-government, 
possessed previously by each separately, in favor of their general con- 
federated powers, giving thereby increased energy to the states in their 
united capacity, and weakening them in the same degree in their 
separate. Its object was to facilitate and strengthen the action of the 
amending, or (to speak a little more appropriately, as it regards the 
point under consideration) the repairing power. It was foreseen that 
experience would, probably, disclose errors in the Constitution itself; 
that time would make great changes in the condition of the country, 
which would require corresponding changes in the Constitution; that 
the irregular and conflicting movements of the bodies composing so 
complex a system might cause derangements requiring correction ; and 
that, to require the unanimous consent of all the states to meet these 
various contingencies, would be placing the whole too much under the 
control of the parts : to remedy which, this great additional power was 
given to the amending or repairing power — this vis medicatrix of the 
system. 

To understand correctly the nature of this concession, we must not 
confound it with the delegated powers conferred on the General 
Government, and to be exercised by it as the joint agent of the states. 
They are essentially different. The former is, in fact, but a modification 
of the original sovereign power residing in the people of the several 
states — of the creating or Constitution-making power itself, intended, as 
stated, to facilitate and strengthen its action, and not change its character. 
Though modified, it is not delegated. It still resides in the states, and is 
still to be exercised by them, and not by the government. 

I propose next to consider this important modification of the sovereign 
powers of the states, in connection with the right of nullification. 

It is acknowledged on all sides that the duration and stability of our 



218 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

system depend on maintaining the equilibrium between the states and 
the General Government — the reserved and delegated powers. We 
know that the Convention which formed the Constitution, and the 
various state conventions which adopted it, as far as we are informed of 
their proceedings, felt the deepest solicitude on this point. They saw 
and felt there would be an incessant conflict between them, which 
would menace the existence of the system itself, unless properly guarded, 
The contest between the states and General Government — the reserved 
and delegated rights — will, in truth, be a conflict between the great 
predominant interests of the Union on one side, controlling and directing 
the movements of the government, and seeking to enlarge the delegated 
powers,' and thereby advance their power and prosperity ; and, on the 
other, the minor interests rallying on the reserved powers, as the only 
means of protecting themselves against the encroachments and oppres- 
sion of the other. In such a contest, without the most effectual check, 
the stronger will absorb the weaker interests ; while, on the other hand, 
without an adequate provision of some description or other, the efforts 
of the weaker to guard against the encroachments and oppression of the 
stronger might permanently derange the system. 

On the side of the reserved powers, no check more effectual can be 
found or desired than nullification, or the right of arresting, within the 
limits of a state, the exercise, by the General Government, of any 
powers but the delegated — a right which, if the states be true to them- 
selves and faithful to the Constitution, will ever prove, on the side of 
the reserved powers, an effectual protection to both. 

Nor is the check on the side of the delegated less perfect. Though 
less strong, it is ample to guard against encroachments ; and is as strong 
as the nature of the system would bear, as will appear in the sequel. 
It is to be found in the amending power. Without the modification 
which it contains of the rights of self-government on the part of the 
states, as already explained, the consent of each state would have been 
requisite to any additional grant of power, or other amendment of the 
Constitution. While, then, nullification would enable a state to arrest 
the exercise of a power not delegated, the right of self-government, if 
unmodified, would enable her to prevent the grant of a power not 
delegated; and thus her conception of what power ought to be granted 
would be as conclusive against the co-states, as her construction of the 
powers granted i3 against the General Government. In that case, the 
danger would be on the side of the states or reserved powers. The 



1824-32.] LETTER TO GOVERNOR HAMILTON. 219 

amending power, in effect, prevents this danger. In virtue of the 
provisions which it contains, the resistance of a state to a power cannot 
finally prevail, unless she be sustained by one fourth of the co-states ; 
and in the same degree that her resistance is weakened, the power of 
the General Government, or the side of the delegated powers, is 
strengthened. It is true that the right of a state to arrest an unconsti- 
tutional act is of itself complete against the government ; but it is 
equally so that the controversy may, in effect, be terminated against her 
by a grant of the contested powers by three fourths of the states. It is 
thus by this simple, and, apparently, incidental contrivance, that the 
right of a state to nullify an unconstitutional act, so essential to the pro- 
tection of the reserved rights, but which, unchecked, might too much 
debilitate the government, is counterpoised : not by weakening the 
energy of a state in her direct resistance to the encroachment of the 
government, or by giving to the latter a direct control over the states, 
as proposed in the Convention, but in a manner infinitely more safe, and, 
if I may be permitted so to express myself, scientific, by strengthening 
the amending or repairing power — the power of correcting all abuses 
or derangements, by whatever cause, or from whatever quarter. 

To sum all in a few words. The General Government has the right, 
in the first instance, of construing its own powers, which, if final and 
conclusive, as is supposed by many, would have placed the reserved 
powers at the mercy of the delegated, and thus destroy the equilibrium 
of the system. Against that, a state lias the light of nullification. 
This right, on the part of the state, if not counterpoised, might tend too 
strongly to weaken the General Government and derange the system. 
To correct this, the amending or repairing power is strengthened. The 
former cannot be made too strong if the latter be proportionably so. 
The increase of the latter is, in effect, the decrease of the former. Give 
to a majority of the states the right of amendment, and the arresting 
power, on the part of the state, would, in fact, be annulled. The 
amending power and the powers of the government would, in that case, 
be, in reality, in the same hands. The same majority that controlled 
the one would the other, and the power arrested, as not granted, would 
be immediately restored in the shape of a grant, This modification of 
the right of self-government, on the part of the states, is, in fact, the 
pivot of the system. By shifting its position as the preponderance is on 
the one side or the other, or, to drop the simile, by increasing or 
diminishing the energy of the repairing power, effected by diminishing 



220 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

or increasing the number of states necessary to amend the Constitution, 
the equilibrium between the reserved and the delegated rights may be 
preserved or destroyed at pleasure. 

I am aware it is objected that, according to this view, one fourth of 
the states may, in reality, change the Constitution, and thus take away 
powers which have been unanimously granted by all the states. The 
objection is more specious than solid. The right of a state is not to 
resume delegated powers, but to prevent the reserved from being 
assumed by the government. It is, however, certain the right may be 
abused, and, thereby, powers be resumed which were, in fact, delegated ; 
and it is also true, if sustained by one fourth of the co-states, such 
resumption may be successfully and permanently made by the state. 
This is the danger, and the utmost extent of the danger from the side 
of the reserved powers. It would, I acknowledge, be desirable to 
avoid or lessen it ; but neither can be effected without increasing a 
greater and opposing danger. 

If the right be denied to the state to defend her reserved powers, for 
fear she might resume the delegated, that denial would, in effect, yield 
to the General Government the power, under the color of construction, 
to assume at pleasure ail the reserved powers. It is, in fact, a question 
between the danger of the states resuming the delegated powers on one 
side, and the General Government assuming the reserved on the other. 
Passing over the far greater probability of the latter than the former, 
which I endeavored to illustrate in the address of last summer, I shall 
confine my remarks to the striking difference between them, viewed in 
connection with the genius and theory of our government. 

The right of a state originally to complete self-government is a 
fundamental principle in our system, in virtue of which the grant of 
power required the consent of all the states, while to withhold power the 
dissent of a single state teas sufficient. It is true, that this original and 
absolute power of self-government has been modified by the Constitu- 
tion, as already stated, so that three fourths of the states may now 
grant power ; and, consequently, it requires more than one fourth to 
withhold. The boundary between the reserved and the delegated 
powers marks the limits of the Union. The states are united to the 
extent of the latter, and separated beyond that limit. It is, then, clear 
that it was not intended that the states should be more united than the 
will of one fourth of them, or, rather, one more than a fourth, would 
permit. It is worthy of remark, that it was proposed in the Convention 



1824-32.] LETTER TO GOVERNOR HAMILTON. 221 

to increase the confederative power, as it may be called, by vesting two 
thirds of the states with the right of amendment, so as to require more 
than a third, instead of a fourth, to withhold poAver. The proposition 
Was rejected, and three fourths unanimously adopted. It is, then, more 
hostile to the nature and genius of our system to assume powers not 
delegated, than to resume those that are ; and less hostile that a state, 
sustained by one fourth of her co-states, should prevent the exercise of 
power really intended to be granted, than that the General Government 
should assume the exercise of powers not intended to be. delegated. In the 
latter case, the usurpation of power would be against the fundamental 
principle of our system, the original right of the states to self-govern- 
ment ; while in the former, if it be usurpation at all, it would be, if so 
bold an expression may be used, a usurpation in the spirit of the Con- 
stitution itself — the spirit ordaining that the utmost extent of our 
Union should be limited by the will of any number of states exceeding 
a fourth, and that most wisely. In a country having so great a 
diversity of geographical and political interests, with so vast a territory, 
to be filled, in a short time, with almost countless millions — a country 
of which the parts will equal empires, a union more intimate than that 
ordained in the Constitution, and so intimate, of course, that it might be 
permanently hostile to the feelings of more than a fourth of the states, 
instead of strengthening, would have exposed the system to certain 
destruction. There is a deep and profound philosophy, which he who 
best knows our nature will the most highly appreciate, that would 
make the intensity of the Union, if I may so express myself, inversely 
to the extent of territory and the population of a country, and the 
diversity of its interests, geographical and political; and which would 
hold in deeper dread the assumption of reserved rights by the agent 
appointed to execute the delegated, than the resumption of the delega- 
ted by the authority which granted the powers and ordained the agent 
to administer them. There appears, indeed, to be a great and prevail- 
ing principle that tends to place the delegated power in opposition to 
the delegating — the created to the creating power — reaching far beyond 
man and his works, up to the universal source of all power. The 
earliest pages of Sacred History record the rebellion of the archangels 
against the high authority of Heaven itself, and ancient mythology, the 
war of the Titans against Jupiter, which according to its narrative 
menaced the universe with destruction. This all-pervading principle is 
at work in our system— the created warring against the creating 



222 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

power ; and unless the government be bolted and chained down with 
links of adamant by the hand of the states which created it, the creature 
will usurp the place of the creator, and universal political idolatry 
overspread the land. 

If the views presented be correct, it follows that, on the interposition 
of a state in favor of the reserved rights, it would be the duty of the 
General Government to abandon the contested power, or to apply to 
the states themselves, the source of all political authority, for the 
power, in one of the two modes prescribed in the Constitution. If the 
case be a simple one, embracing a single power, and that in its nature 
easily adjusted, the more ready and appropriate mode would be an 
amendment in the ordinary form, on a proposition of two thirds of both 
houses of Congress, to be ratified by three fourths of the states ; but, on 
the contrary, should the derangement of the system be great, embracing 
many points difficult to adjust, the states ought to be convened in a 
general Convention, the most august of all assemblies, representing the 
united sovereignty of the confederated states, and having power and 
authority to correct every error, and to repair every dilapidation or 
injury, whether caused by time or accident, or the conflicting movements 
of the bodies which compose the system. With institutions every way 
so fortunate, possessed of means so well calculated to prevent disorders, 
and so admirable to correct them when they cannot be prevented, he 
who would prescribe for our political disease disunion on the one side, 
or coercion of a state in the assertion of its rights on the other, would de- 
serve and will receive, the execrations of this and all future generations. 

I have now finished what I had to say on the subject of this com- 
munication, in its immediate connection with the Constitution. In the 
discussion, I have advanced nothing but on the authority of the Con- 
stitution itself, or that of recorded and unquestionable facts connected 
with the history of its origin and formation ; and have made no deduc- 
tion but such as rested on principles which I believe to be unquestiona- 
ble ; but it would be idle to expect, in the present state of the public 
mind, a favorable reception of the conclusions to which I have been 
carried. There are too many misconceptions to encounter, too many 
prejudices to combat, and, above all, too great a weight of interest to 
resist. I do not propose to investigate these great impediments to the 
reception of the truth, though it would be an interesting subject of 
inquiry to trace them to their cause, and to measure the force of their 
impeding power ; but there is one among them of so marked a charac- 



1824-32.] LETTER TO GOVERNOR HAMILTON. 223 

ter, and which operates so extensively, that I cannot conclude without 
making it the subject of a few remarks, particularly as they will be 
calculated to throw much lia;ht on what has already been said. 

Of all the impediments opposed to a just conception of the nature 
of our political system, the impression that the right of a state to 
arrest an unconstitutional act of the General Government is inconsist- 
ent with the great and fundamental principle of all free states — that a 
majority has the right to govern — is the greatest. Thus regarded, nul- 
lification is, without farther reflection, denounced as the most danger- 
ous and monstrous of all political heresies, as, in truth, it would be, 
were the objection as well-founded as, in fact, it is destitute of all 
foundation, as I shall now proceed to show. 

Those who make the objection seem to suppose that the right of a 
majority to govern is a principle too simple to admit of any distinction ; 
and yet, if I do not mistake, it is susceptible of the most important 
distraction — entering deeply into the construction of our system, and, I 
may add, into that of all free states in proportion to the perfection of 
their institutions, and is essential to the very existence of liberty. 

When, then, it is said that a majority lias the right to govern, there 
are two modes of estimating the majority, to either of which the expres- 
sion is applicable. The one, in which the whole community is regarded 
in the aggregate, and the majority is estimated in reference to the entire 
mass. This may be called the majority of the whole, or the absolute 
majority. The other, in which it is regarded in reference to its different 
political interests, whether composed of different classes, of different 
communities, formed into one general confederated community, and in 
which the majority is estimated, not in reference to the whole, but to 
each class or community of which it is composed, the assent of each 
taken separately, and the concurrence of all constituting the majority. 
A majority thus estimated may be called the concurring majority. 

When it is objected to nullification, that it is opposed to the principle 
that a majority ought to govern, he who makes the objection must 
mean the absolute, as distinguished from the concurring. It is only in 
the sense of the former the objection can be applied. In that of the 
concurring, it would be absurd, as the concurring assent of all the parts 
(with us, all the states) is of the very essence of such majority. Again, 
it is manifest, that in the sense it would be good against nullification, it 
would be equally so against the Constitution itself; for, in whatever 
light that instrument may be regarded, it is clearly not the work of 



224 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

the absolute, but of the concurring majority. It was formed and rati- 
fied by the concurring assent of all the states, and not by the majority 
of the whole taken in the aggregate, as has been already stated. Thus, 
the acknowledged right of each state in reference to the Constitution, is 
unquestionably the same right which nullification attributes to c-ach in 
reference to the unconstitutional ads of the government; and, if the 
latter be opposed to the right of a majority to govern, the former is 
equally so. I go further. The objection might, with equal truth, be 
applied to all free states that have ever existed : I mean states deserv- 
ing the name, and excluding, of course, those which, after a factious 
and anarchical existence of a few years, have sunk under the yoke of 
tyranny or the dominion of some foreign power. There is not, with 
this exception, a single free state whose institutions were not based on 
the principle of the concurring majority : not one in which the com- 
munity was not regarded in reference to its different political interests, 
and which did not, in some form or other, take tlie assent of each in 
the operation of the government. 

In support of this assertion, I might begin with our own government 
and go back to that of Sparta, and show conclusively that there is not 
one on the list whose institutions were not organized on the principle 
of the concurring majority, and in the operation of which, the sense of 
each great interest was not separately consulted. The various devices 
which have been contrived for this purpose, with the peculiar operation 
of each, would be a curious and highly important subject of investiga- 
tion. I can only allude to some of the most prominent. 

The principle of the concurring majority has sometimes been incor- 
porated in the regular and ordinary operation o the government, each 
interest having a distinct organization, and a combination of the whole 
forming the government; but still requiring the consent of each, within 
its proper sphere, to give validity to the measures of government. Of 
this modification the British and Spartan governments are by far the 
most memorable and perfect examples. In others, the right of acting 
— of making and executing the laws — was vested in one interest, and 
the right of arresting or nullifying in another. Of this description, the 
Roman government is much the most striking instance. In others, the 
right of originating or introducing projects of laws was in one, and of 
enacting them in another : as at Athens before its government degen- 
erated, where the Senate proposed, and the General Assembly of the 
people enacted, laws. 






1824-32.] LETTER TO GOVERNOR HAMILTON. 225 

These devices were all resorted to with the intention of consulting 
the separate interests of which the several communities were com- 
posed, and against all of which the objection to nullification, that it is 
opposed to the will of a majority, could be raised with equal force — 
as strongly, and I may say much more so, against the unlimited, un- 
qualified, and uncontrollable veto of a single tribune out of ten at 
Rome on all laws and the execution of laws, as against the same right 
of a sovereign state (one of the twenty-four tribunes of this Union), 
limited, as the right is, to the unconstitutional acts of the General Gov- 
ernment, and liable, as in effect it is, to be controlled by three fourths 
of the co-states ; and yet the Roman Republic, and the other states to 
which I have referred, are the renowned among free states, whose ex- 
amples have diffused the spirit of liberty over the world, and which, 
if struck from the list, would leave behind but little to be admired or 
imitated. There, indeed, would remain one class deserving from us 
particular notice, as ours belongs to it — I mean confederacies ; but, as 
a class, heretofore far less distinguished for power and prosperity than 
those already alluded to ; though I trust, with the improvements we 
have made, destined to be placed at the very head of the illustrious 
list of states which have blessed the world with examples of well- 
regulated liberty ; and which stand as so many oa^es in the midst of 
the desert of oppression and despotism, which occupies so vast a space 
in the chart of governments. That such will be the great and glorious 
destiny of our system, I feel assured, provided we do not permit our 
government to degenerate into the worst of all possible forms, a consoli- 
dated government, swayed by the will of an absolute majority. But 
to proceed. 

Viewing a confederated community as composed of as many distinct 
political interests as there are states, and as requiring the consent of 
each to its measures, no government can be conceived in which the 
sense of the whole community can be more perfectly taken, and all its 
interests be more fully represented and protected. But, with this great 
advantage, united with the means of the most just and perfect local 
administration through the agency of the states, and combined with 
the capacity of embracing within its limits the greatest extent of ter- 
ritory and variety of interests, it is liable to one almost fatal objection, 
the tardiness and feebleness of its movements — a defect difficult to 
be remedied, and when not so great as to render a form of govern- 
ment, in other respects so admirable, almost worthless. To overcome 

10* 



2*26 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

tliis difficulty was the great desideratum in political science, and the 
most difficult problem within its circle. To us belongs the glory of its 
solution, if, indeed, our experiment (for such it must yet be called) 
shall prove that we have overcome it, as I sincerely believe and hope 
it will, on account of our own, as well as the liberty and happiness of 
our race. 

Our first experiment in government was on the old form of a simple 
confederacy, unmodified, and extending the principle of the concurring 
majority alike to the Constitution (the articles of union) and to the 
government which it constituted. It failed, and the present structure 
was reared in its place, combining, for the first time in a confederation, 
the absolute with the concurring majority ; and thus uniting the justice 
of the one with the energy of the other. 

The new government was reared on the foundation of the old, 
strengthened, but not changed. It stands on the same solid basis of the 
concurring majority, perfected by the sanction of the people of the 
states directly given, and not indirectly through the state governments, 
as their representatives, as in the old confederation. With that differ- 
ence, the authority which made the two Constitutions — which granted 
their powers, and ordained and organized their respective governments 
to execute them — is the same. But, in passing from the Constitution 
to the government (the law-making and the law-administering powers), 
the difference between the two becomes radical and essential. There, 
in the present, the concurring majority is dropped, and the absolute 
substituted. In determining, then, what powers ought to be granted, 
and how the government appointed for their execution ought to be 
organized, the separate and concurring voice of the states was required — 
the union being regarded, for this purpose, in reference to its various 
and distinct interests ; but in the execution of these powers (delegated 
only because all the states had a common interest in their exercise), the 
union is no longer regarded in reference to its parts, but as forming, to 
the extent of its delegated powers, one great community, to be governed 
by a common will, just as the states arc; in reference to their separate 
interests, and by a government organized on principles similar to theirs. 
By this simple but fortunate arrangement, we have ingrafted the abso- 
lute on the concurring majority, thereby giving to the administration of 
the powers of the government, where they were required, all the 
energy and promptness belonging to the former, while we have retained 
in the power granting and organizing authority (if I may so express 



1824-32.] LETTER TO GOVERNOR HAMILTON. 227 

myself) the principle of the concurring majority, and with it that justice, 
moderation, and full and perfect representation of all the interests of the 
community which belong exclusively to it 

Such is the solidity and beauty of our admirable system, but which, 
it is perfectly obvious, can only be preserved by maintaining the ascend- 
ency Of the CONSTITUTION-MAKING AUTHORITY OVER THE LAW-MAKING THE 

concurring over the absolute majority. Nor is it less clear that this 
can only be effected by the right of a state to annul the unconstitutional 
acts of the government — a right confounded with the idea of a minority 
governing a majority, but which, so far from being the case, is indis- 
pensable to prevent the more energetic but imperfect majority which 
controls the movements of the government, from usurping the place of 
that more perfect and just majority which formed the Constitution and 
ordained government to* execute its powers. 

Nor need we apprehend that this check, as powerful as it is, will 
orove excessive. The distinction between the Constitution and the law- 
making powers, so strongly marked in our institutions, may yet be con- 
sidered as a new and untried experiment. It can scarcely be said to 
have existed at all before our system of government. We have yet 
much to learn as to its practical operation ; and, among other things, if 
I do not mistake, we are far from realizing the many and great difficul- 
ties of holdinsr the latter subordinate to the former, and without which, 
it is obvious, the entire scheme of constitutional government, at least in 
our sense, must prove abortive. Short as has been our experience, 
some of these, of a very formidable character, have begun to disclose 
themselves, particularly between the Constitution and the government 
of the Union. The two powers there represent very different interests : 
the one, that of all the states taken separately ; and the other, that of 
a majority of the states as forming a confederated community. Each 
acting under the impulse of these respective and very different interests, 
must necessarily strongly tend to come into collision, and, in the conflict, 
the advantage will be found almost exclusively on the side of the 
government or law-making power. A few remarks will be sufficient to 
illustrate these positions. 

The Constitution, while it grants powers to the government, at the 
same time imposes restrictions on its action, with the intention of con- 
fining it within a limited range of powers, and of the means of executing 
them. The object of the powers is to protect the rights and promote 
the interests of all ; and of the restrictions, to prevent the majority, or 



228 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

the dominant interests of the government, from perverting powers 
intended for the common good into the means of oppressing the minor 
interests of the community. Thus circumstanced, the dominant interest 
in possession of the powers of the government, and the minor interest 
on whom they are exercised, must regard these restrictions in a very 
different light : the latter, as a protection, and the former, as a restraint, 
and, of course, accompanied with all the impatient feelings with which 
restrictions on cupidity and ambition are ever regarded by those unruly 
passions. Under their influence, the Constitution will be viewed by the 
majority, not as the source of their authority, as it should be, but as 
shackles on their power. To them it will have no value as the means 
of protection. As a majority they require none. Their number and 
strength, and not the Constitution, are their protection ; and, of course, 
if I may so speak, their instinct will be to weaken and destroy the re- 
strictions, in order to enlarge the powers. He must have a very imper- 
fect knowledge of the human heart who does not see, in this state of 
things, an incessant conflict between the government or the law-making 
power and the Constitution-making power. Nor is it less certain that, 
in the contest, the advantage will be exclusively with the former. 

The law-making power is organized and in constant action, having the 
control of the honors and emoluments of the country, and armed with 
the power to punish and reward ; the other, on the contrary, is un- 
organized, lying dormant in the great inert mass of the community, till 
called into action on extraordinary occasions and at distant intervals ; 
and then bestowing no honors, exercising no patronage, having neither 
the faculty to reward nor to punish, but endowed simply with the 
attribute to grant powers and ordain the authority to execute them. 
The result is inevitable. With so strong an instinct on the part of the 
government to throw off the restrictions of the Constitution and to 
enlarge its powers, and with such powerful faculties to gratify this 
instinctive impulse, the law-making must necessarily encroach on the 
Constitution-making power, unless restrained by the most efficient 
check — at least as strong as that for which we contend. It is worthy 
of remark, that, all other circumstances being equal, the more dissimilar 
the interests represented by the two, the more powerful will be this 
tendency to encroach ; and it is from this, among other causes, that it 
is so much stronger between the government and the Constitution- 
making powers of the Union, where the interests are so very dissimilar, 
than between the two in the several states. 



1824-32.] LETTER TO GOVERNOR HAMILTON. 



229 



That the framers of the Constitution were aware of the danger which 
I have described, we have conclusive proof in the provision to which I 
have so frequently alluded— I mean that which provides for amend- 
ments to the Constitution. 

I have already remarked on that portion of this provision which, with 
the view of strengthening the confederated pow T er, conceded to three 
fourths of the states a right to amend, which otherwise could only have 
been exercised by the unanimous consent of all. It is remarkable, that, 
while this provision thus strengthened the amending power as it regards 
the states, it imposed impediments on it as far as the government was 
concerned. The power of acting, as a general rule, is invested in the 
majority of Congress ; but, instead of permitting a majority to propose 
amendments, the provision requires for that purpose two thirds of both 
houses, clearly with a view of interposing a barrier against this strong 
instinctive appetite of the government for the acquisition of power. 
But it would have been folly in the extreme thus carefully to guard the 
passage to the direct acquisition, had the wide door of construction been 
left open to its indirect ; and hence, in the same spirit in which two 
thirds of both houses were required to propose amendments, the Con- 
vention that framed the Constitution rejected the many propositions 
which were moved in that body with the intention of divesting the states 
of the right of interposing and, thereby, of the only effectual means of 
preventing the enlargement of the powers of the government by con- 
struction. 

It is thus that the Constitution-making power has fortified itself 
against the law-making ; and that so effectually, that, however strong 
the disposition and capacity of the latter to encroach, the means of 
resistance on the part of the former are not less powerful. If, indeed, 
encroachments have been made, the fault is not in the system, but in the 
inattention and neglect of those whose interest and duty it was to inter- 
pose the ample means of protection afforded by the Constitution. 

To sum up in few words, in conclusion, what appears to me to be the 
entire philosophy of government, in reference to the subject of this 
communication. 

Two powers are necessary to the existence and preservation of free 
states : a power on the part of the ruled to prevent rulers from abus- 
ing their authority, by compelling them to be faithful to their constitu- 
ents, and which is effected through the right of suffrage ; and a power 

TO COMPEL THE PARTS OF SOCIETY TO BE JUST TO ONE ANOTHER. BY COM- 



230 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

FELLING THEM TO CONSULT THE INTEREST OF EACH OTHER, which Can Only 

be effected, whatever may be the device for the purpose, by requiring 
the concurring assent of all the great and distinct interests of the com- 
munity to the measures of the government. This result is the sum- 
total of all the contrivances adopted by free states to preserve their 
liberty, by preventing the conflicts between the several classes or parts 
of the community. Both powers are indispensable. The one as much 
so as the other. The rulers are not more disposed to encroach on the 
ruled than the different interests of the community on one another ; 
nor would they more certainly convert their power from the just and 
legitimate objects for which governments are instituted into an instru- 
ment of aggrandizement, at the expense of the ruled, unless made re- 
sponsible to their constituents, than would the stronger interests theirs, 
at the expense of the weaker, unless compelled to consult them in the 
measures of the government, by taking their separate and concurring 
assent. The same cause operates in both cases. The constitution of 
our nature, which would impel the rulers to oppress the ruled, unless 
prevented, would in like manner, and with equal force, impel the 
stronger to oppress the weaker interest. To vest the right of govern- 
ment in the absolute majority, would be, in fact, but to embody the 

WILL OF THE STRONGER INTEREST IN THE OPERATIONS OF THE GOVERN- 
MENT, AND NOT THE WILL OF THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, AND TO LEAVE THE 
OTHERS UNPROTECTED, A PREY TO ITS AMBITION AND CUPIDITY, just 3S 

would be the case between rulers and ruled, if the right to govern was 
vested exclusively in the hands of the former. They would both be, 
in reality, absolute and despotic governments : the one as much so as 
the other. 

They would both become mere instruments of cupidity and ambition 
in the hands of those who wielded them. ISb one doubts that such 
would be the case were the government placed under the control of 
irresponsible rulers; but, unfortunately for the cause of liberty, it is 
not seen with equal clearness that it must as necessarily be so when 
controlled by an absolute majority ; and yet, the former is not more 
certain than the latter. To this we may attribute the mistake so often 
and so fatally repeated, that to expel a despot is to establish lib- 
erty — a mistake to which we may trace the failure of many noble and 
generous efforts in favor of liberty. The error consists in considering 
communities as formed of interests strictly identical throughout, instead 
of being composed, as they in reality are, of so many distinct interests 



1824-32.] LETTER TO GOVERNOR HAMILTON. 231 

as there are individuals. The interests of no two persons are the same, 
regarded in reference to each other, though they may be, viewed in 
relation to the rest of the community. It is this diversity which the 
several portions of the community bear to each other, in reference to 
the whole, that renders the principle of the concurring majority neces- 
sary to preserve liberty. Place the power in the hands of the abso- 
lute majority, and the strongest of these would certainly pervert the 
government from the object for which it was instituted, the equal pro- 
tection of the rights of all, into an instrument of advancing itself at the 
expense of the rest of the community. Against this abuse of power 
no remedy can be devised but that of the concurring majority. Neither 
the right of suffrage nor public opinion can possibly check it. They, in 
fact, but tend to aggravate the disease. It seems really surprising that 
truths so obvious should be so imperfectly understood. There would 
appear, indeed, a feebleness in our intellectual powers on political sub- 
jects when directed to large masses. We readily see why a single indi- 
vidual, as a ruler, would, if not prevented, oppress the rest of the com- 
munity ; but are at a loss to understand why seven millions would, if 
not also prevented, oppress six millions, as if the relative members on 
either side could in the least degree vary the principle. 

In stating what I have, I have but repeated the experience of ages, 
comprehending all free governments preceding ours, and ours as far as 
it has advanced. The practical operation of ours has been substan- 
tially on the principle of the absolute majority. We have acted, with 
some exceptions, as if the General Government had the right to in- 
terpret its own powers, without limitation or cheek ; and though many 
cirumstances have favored us, and greatly impeded the natural pro- 
gress of events, under such an operation of the system, yet we already 
see, in whatever direction we turn our eyes, the growing symptoms of 
disorder and decay — the growth of faction, cupidity, and corruption ; 
and the decay of patriotism, integrity, and disinterestedness. In the 
midst of youth, we see the flushed cheek, and the short and feverish 
breath, that mark the approach of the fatal hour ; and come it will, 
unless there be a speedy and radical change — a return to the great con- 
servative principle which brought the Republican party into authority, 
but which, with the possession of power and prosperity, it has long 
ceased to remember. 

I have now finished the task which your request imposed. If I 
have been so fortunate as to add to your fund a single new illustration 



232 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

of this great conservative principle of our government, or to furnish 
an additional argument calculated to sustain the state in her noble 
and patriotic struggle to revive and maintain it, and in which you have 
acted a part long to be remembered by the friends of freedom, I shall 
feel amply compensated for the time occupied in so long a communica- 
tion. I believe the cause to be the cause of truth and justice, of union, 
liberty, and the Constitution, before which the ordinary party struggles 
of the day sink into perfect insignificance ; and that it will be so re- 
garded by the most distant posterity, I have not the slightest doubt. 

With great and sincere regard, 

I am yours, &a, &c, 

John C. Calhoun. 
His Excellency James Hamilton, Jan., 

Governor of Soutlt Carolina. 

This elaborate production exhausted the whole argu- 
ment in defence of the position assumed by Mr. Cal- 
houn, and, with his address, was regarded as a political 
text book by the nullifiers of South Carolina. They 
looked upon it as their Magna Charta, which promised 
them deliverance from wrong and oppression, and be- 
hind which were safety and protection. 

Before proceeding further, let us see what w T as in 
truth the position of Mr. Calhoun ; for upon no subject 
was he more frequently misrepresented, and none of the 
great constitutional questions which have been agitated, 
is so little understood at this day in many sections of the 
Union : — He held, then, 1. that the federal constitution 
was a compact adopted and ratified by and between the 
states, in their sovereign capacities as states ; 2. that 
the general government contemplated and authorized 
by this constitution was the mere agent of the states in 
the execution of certain delegated powers, in regard to 
the extent of which the states themselves were the final 
judges ; and 3. that when the reserved powers were in- 



1824-32.] his position. 233 

fringed by the general government, or the delegated 
powers abused, its principals, the states, possessed the 
right of state interposition or nullification, otherwise 
there would be no remedy for any usurpation of the re- 
served or abuse of the delegated powers. 

These were the great leading features of Mr. Calhoun's 
creed, and he claimed that the Virginia and Kentucky 
resolutions, and Mr. Madison's report, fully sustained 
him in the position he had assumed. And it is difficult 
to see wherein they did not thus sustain him. The 
Virginia resolutions declared, in express terms, the 
right of the states to interpose, whenever their reserved 
powers were infringed, and to maintain '•' within their 
respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties, ap- 
pertaining to them ;" and in the Kentucky resolutions, 
Mr. Jefferson held, " that in all cases of an abuse of 
delegated powers, the members of the general govern- 
ment being chosen by the people, a change by the 
people would be the constitutional remedy ; but where 
powers are assumed, which have not been delegated, a 
nullification of the act is the rightful remedy that every 
state has a natural right to, in cases not in the compact 
(casus non foederis), to nullify, of their own authority, 
all assumptions of powers within their limits." 

Such was the platform laid down by Jefferson and 
Madison, the great founders of the Republican party, and 
upon which Mr. Calhoun planted himself. His views 
were, of course, diametrically opposed to the consolida- 
tion doctrines of the federal school of politicians ; and 
with respect to the minor questions collateral to, or 
growing out of, these first principles, the difference was 
as broad and as well-defined. Among Republicans, 



234 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

however, the State Rights doctrines were generally 
popular, during the nullification controversy, and they 
have since become even more so, in consequence of the 
able and convincing expositions of Mr. Calhoun. But 
the great majority of his old political friends, out of the 
state of South Carolina, differed with him as to the ap- 
plication of those doctrines. He insisted, that the power 
delegated to Congress by the constitution, of laying taxes, 
duties, imposts and excises, was limited, by its terms, to 
the following purposes — the payment of the debts and 
providing for the defence and general welfare of the 
United States :* he admitted the power of Congress to 
impose duties for revenue, but denied it for protection. 
On the other side it was said, that the right to impose 
duties for protection existed somewhere ; that the fed- 
eral constitution expressly took away from the states 
the power to lay imposts or duties on imports or ex- 
ports ;+ and that, as this power could not be utterly 
extinct, it must be lodged in the general government. J 
To this Mr. Calhoun replied, that the idea of protecting 
the domestic interests of the country was not contem- 
plated by the framers of the constitution; that every 
tariff prior to 1816 was a revenue tariff; and that the 
cession of the public lands by the states to the general 
government was made to enable it to pay the public 
debt, and that this cession would have been unnecessary 
for such a purpose, if a high protective tariff was 
thought to be constitutional. All the opponents of Mr. 
Calhoun in the Republican party, did not maintain that 
a tariff, with protection as its primary feature, was con- 

* Article i., Section 8. f Ibid, Section 10. 

% Annual Message of President Jackson, 1830. 



1824-32.] protection. 235 

stitutional. This doctrine was held by the northern 
federalists, and by only a small portion of the friends of 
the administration of General Jackson. The Republi- 
cans, generally, agreed that revenue should be the con- 
trolling consideration; but many, and perhaps all who 
were not nullifiers, thought that it was proper, in the im- 
position of duties, to discriminate for purposes of pro- 
tection. This, too, Mr. Calhoun regarded as an error, 
for discrimination for protection was neither more nor 
less than protection itself — not so glaring, not so unjust, 
it might be — yet involving the same identical principle. 

Admitting that the words " general welfare" in the 
constitution, as has been contended by many, would 
appear to authorize a tariff for the protection of domes- 
tic interests : is it true that the general welfare, which 
obviously means the good of the whole, the benefit and 
advantage of each and every of the states, equally and 
alike, can be promoted by a protective tariff? Prob- 
ably no question has given rise to more sophistry, to 
greater or more absurd fallacies, than this. Many 
specious arguments, the arguments of chance or cir- 
cumstance, have been resorted to by the advocates of 
protection, but they may all be embraced in a few prop- 
ositions. 

In the first place, it is said, that a protective tariff 
reduces the prices of manufactured goods, and as the 
evidence of this, the friends of protection point to the 
difference in the cost of certain articles, previous to 
1816, and at the present time. But this is all decep- 
tion. The establishment of manufactories in this coun- 
try may have contributed in a very slight degree to re- 
duce prices, but the great causes of this reduction are 



236 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

to be found in the improvements in machinery origina- 
ting in the inventive genius of Arkwright, Danforth, 
Montgomery, Gore, and Roberts, and in the wonderfully 
increased facilities for the production, and consequent 
cheapness, of the raw material. One of two things is 
self-evident : — the duty upon an article either increases 
the cost to the consumer, or else it affords no protection. 
If an article can be imported this year and sold at one 
dollar, and if a duty is next year imposed upon it, all 
things entering into or making up the value of the 
article remaining unchanged, the price in the market, is 
increased, — by the amount of protection, if the duty be 
a prohibitory one, and if less than that, by the amount 
of the duty itself. So obvious is this, that the contrary 
proposition carries with it, in its absurdity, its own ref- 
utation. 

In the second place, it is urged, that a protective tariff 
affords a home-market for agricultural products. But is 
this so ? The agricultural interest all admit to be the 
great interest of the country ; but facts show, that no 
home-market has ever yet been afforded to it by a pro- 
tective tariff. Centuries must elapse, if, indeed, that 
time ever arrives, before our agricultural products will 
all be consumed at home. There is a large amount of 
surplus produce annually disposed of in foreign mar- 
kets. In 1847, there were produced in the United 
States, 694,491,700 bushels of grain used for bread- 
stuffs, of which the surplus for exportation amounted to 
224,384.502 bushels, or nearly one third of the whole 
amount.* During the year ending the 31st of August, 
1849, there were 2,227,844 bales of cotton exported from 
* Report of the Commissioner of Patents, January, 1848. 



1824-32.] EVILS OF THE PROTECTIVE SYSTEM. 237 

the United States to foreign ports, while the much 
boasted home-market consumed but 520,000 bales, not 
one fifth part of the whole production.* The value of 
the domestic exports of the United States during the 
year ending on the 30th of June, 1849, was $132,666,955, f 
of which the agricultural products amounted to $111,- 
059,378, or more than three fourths of the whole 
amount. J In view of these facts, no unprejudiced 
person can for a moment consider the vast territorial 
extent of these states, and the variety and amount of 
their productions, without being forcibly impressed with 
the conviction that a home-market is entirely out of the 
question. The manner in which a protective tariff 
operates to the prejudice of the farmer and planter is 
this : — the prices obtained for their surplus in foreign 
markets constitute the standard of value for the whole 
production. The internal trade, that of the home-mar- 
ket, is mere barter ; but the foreign trade is the true 
commercial traffic which regulates and controls prices. 
The value of breadstuff's is not determined in the city 
of New York, but in the foreign markets where the sur- 
plus is disposed of; and the prices of cotton at Charles- 
ton, Mobile, and New Orleans, are not made at Provi- 
dence or Lowell, but at Liverpool and Manchester. 
Restrictions upon the trade with foreign countries, in 
the shape of high duties, are therefore injurious to the 
agricultural interest generally, and are in effect a tax 

* Hunt's Merchants' Magazine. 

f The total value of the exports, of domestic and foreign produce, was 
$145,155,820. 

% House of Representatives, Exec. Doc. 15 — 1st session, 81st Con- 
gress — pp. 50, 51. 



238 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

upon it to the amount of the increased prices of the 
protected articles consumed by it ; in the southern and 
planting states they are felt to be particularly oppressive, 
because nearly one half of the domestic exports of the 
country are produced there, the value of the rice, cotton 
and tobacco, exported in the year ending June 30, 1849, 
amounting to about seventy-five millions of dollars, con- 
siderably more than one half of the whole exports dur- 
ing that period.* 

Again, it is contended, that without a protective 
tariff the balance of trade is against us. It is very 
questionable, whether it would in fact be desirable to 
have the balance of trade always in our favor, for if we 
drew ten millions of dollars annually from foreign coun- 
tries, their supplies of specie would soon be exhausted, 
and trade would be at an end. Any one who will 
examine the tables of imports and exports for the last 
sixty years, will find that the balance has sometimes 
been in our favor, and sometimes against us — one way 
this vear, and another the next ; and that it has been 
greater against us, under the operation of a protective 
tariff, than under the revenue tariff of 1846. It was so 
after the passage of the acts of 1816, 1824, and 1828 ; 
the same thing was witnessed, too, after the passage of 
the compromise act, while the protective duties were 
collected, though the balance was in this case increased 
by the excessive importations induced by the specula- 
ting tendencies of the times. After the act of 1842 had 
gone fairly into operation, in 1845 and 1846, the balance 
was decidedly against us ; but for three years subse- 

* House of Representatives. Exec. Doc. 15 — 1st session, 31st Con- 
gress — pp. 50, 51. 



1824-32.] BALANCE OF TRADE. 239 

quent to 1846 the net balance was in our favor.* But 
this idea in regard to the balance of trade is all delusive ; 
for among the imports are included various items which 
enter into the substantial wealth of the country, — such 
as the goods and effects of immigrants, gold and silver 
sent here to be invested, or the avails of exports sold 
or of loans obtained for the construction of public works. 
It is further said, that we need a high tariff to pro- 
tect our laborers and mechanics against the pauper 
labor of Europe. This is the worst of all arguments, 
because it is agrarian in its character and tendency. 
Without doubt, the labor of the country is the basis and 
support of its capital, — that is, the means of production 
constitute its real wealth. Labor, then, is deserving 
of encouragement and protection ; but a protective 
tariff is designed to favor only a class of laborers, and 
not the whole. Hence it must be partial and unjust, 
and the protection afforded to the comparatively small 
number of laborers engaged in manufactures is a tax 
upon the industry of the great mass of laborers. This, 
also, operates with peculiar hardship in the great staple 
states at the south, where the avails of labor are sent 
abroad to a foreign market. 

* The following is a table of the imports and exports for three years 
subsequent to the passage of the act of 1846 : 

Imports. Exports. 

1847. $146,545,638 $158,648,622 

1848. 154,977,876 154,032,131 

1849. 147,857,439 145,755,820 



8449,380,953 8458,436,573 

449,380,953 



Net balance in favor of U. S. $9,055,620 



240 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

A strong argument against the protective tariffs 
known in the legislation of this country, is to be found 
in the deceptive features introduced by those who 
framed them, and which would not have appeared if 
they had been in themselves just and proper. Of this 
character are the specific and minimum duties. By 
the former, articles of very unequal value pay the same 
duty, which is as palpably unjust as it would be for an 
assessor to value all the farms in his town or district at 
the same price, though their actual worth varied from 
one thousand to one hundred thousand dollars. The 
minimum principle operates in this way : A duty of 
perhaps twenty per cent, is imposed on cotton goods, 
which would seem to the farmer and laborer a quite 
moderate one ; but to ascertain the actual amount of 
duty, a system of false valuations is adopted, and all 
cotton cloth worth less than twenty cents the square 
yard is valued at twenty cents. Upon this false valua- 
tion the duty is calculated ; as for instance, a yard of 
cotton cloth, whose actual cost is but four cents, is 
valued at twenty cents, and a duty of twenty per cent, 
on this valuation is four cents the yard — thus making 
the duty in fact one hundred per cent, instead of twenty 
per cent. It may be said that this duty is a prohibitory 
one, and therefore it matters not what it may amount 
to. So much the worse. If the duty be prohibitory, 
let it be avowed, and let the bill declare it to be fifty, 
sixty, eighty, or one hundred per cent., as may be in- 
tended, and not by means of this deceptive feature, 
lead those who do not understand the subject, to suppose 
that the duty is only twenty per cent. 

In regard to the remedy for the evils complained of, 



1824-32.] REDUCTION OF DUTIES. 241 

Mr. Calhoun and the milliners also differed from their 
republican friends in other states. He held that the 
right of interposition by a state was immediate upon 
an infringement of her reserved powers; while they 
thought it to be " the rightful remedy'" only in the last 
resort, and that an appeal should first be made to the 
other state governments to redress the wrong before 
adopting any measures of resistance. This course w T as 
recommended by Mr. Jefferson in the Kentucky reso- 
lutions, although he did not declare it to be absolutely 
requisite. If Mr. Calhoun erred, however, in the con- 
struction of this great republican doctrine, and in the 
application of the principles of the republican creed, he 
was sincere in that error. His attachment to the Union 
was firm and devoted ; he ardently desired to see it 
perpetuated ; and no definite steps were taken by South 
Carolina toward the protection of what she conceived 
to be her just rights, until the expiration of four years 
after the passage of the act of 1828. 

While the state was thus agitated with the throes of 
incipient revolution, a ray of hope shot athwart the be- 
clouded sky. The law of 1828 was far more productive 
of revenue than had been anticipated by its framers ; 
the public debt was being rapidly extinguished ; and 
the treasury was seriously threatened with plethora. 
The disposition of the constantly accumulating surplus 
of revenue was of the first importance, and it was gen- 
erally conceded by statesmen of all parties that a reduc- 
tion of duties ought forthwith to be made. The surplus 
might have been absorbed by a vast increase of the ex- 
penditures, but this no party would tolerate. In his 
annual message, therefore, in December, 1831, Presi- 

il 



242 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

dent Jackson announced that the public debt would 
soon be entirely discharged, and recommended the re- 
duction of the duties in order to relieve the people from 
unnecessary taxation. 

So apparent was the necessity for a retrograde move- 
ment, that all appeared to concur in it, and at this 
session of Congress the act of 1832 was passed. This 
bill was declared to be the ultimatum of the friends of 
protection, and was intended by the immediate friends 
of the administration, and by the opposition headed by 
Mr. Clay, as a final adjustment of the duties. The re- 
duction made by the bill was rather imaginary than 
real. The duties upon the protected articles were aug- 
mented, while those on the unprotected articles were 
alone diminished. So far, therefore, from abandoning 
the principle of protection, it was presented in this bill 
in the most odious form. Mr. Calhoun and his friends 
would have been content with the present reduction, if 
a prospective reduction to the revenue standard had 
been contemplated ; but instead of this, it was declared 
that the bill should be the permanent system of revenue 
after the extinguishment of the debt. 

Immediately after the passage of the bill, the repre- 
sentatives from the state of South Carolina who thought 
with Mr. Calhoun, that nullification was the rightful 
remedy, issued an address to the people of the state, 
advising them that the protecting system might now be 
regarded as the settled policy of the country, and that 
all hope of relief from Congress was irrecoverably gone. 

The people of South Carolina were not unanimous 
in sustaining the positions assumed by Mr. Calhoun. 
A small party calling themselves Unionists, embracing 



1824-32.] SOUTH CAROLINA CONVENTION. 243 

several popular and influential men, among whom were 
ex-Governor Manning, Judge Smith, Colonel Drayton, 
Mr. Pettiaru, and Mr. Poinsett, had been formed, 
and, aided by the whole weight of the influence and 
patronage of the federal executive, they entered with 
zeal into the canvass preceding the annual election. A 
fierce and violent contest ensued, which terminated in 
the choice of a large majority of nullifiers to the state 
legislature. Mr. Calhoun was not, in the meanwhile, 
an idle or indifferent spectator. He did not withhold 
his counsel or advice, and no one individual contributed 
more powerfully than he to this result. 

It had all along been conceded by the Unionists that 
the State Rights party were in the ascendant, and the 
great struggle at the election was to prevent the latter 
from obtaining the constitutional majority in the legis- 
lature. Without a majority of two thirds a convention 
could not be called, and this was the only mode in which, 
as the nullifiers admitted, the people of the state could 
declare an act of the United States unconstitutional and 
void. The State Rights party, however, returned more 
than the constitutional number to both houses. The 
legislature convened on the 22d of October, 1832, and 
the first business of the session was the passage of a law 
authorizing the election of delegates to a State Conven- 
tion, to meet at Columbia on the 19th day of November 
following. 

Delegates were accordingly chosen, and the Conven- 
tion was held at the appointed time. On the 24th 
instant they adopted the celebrated Ordinance of Nulli- 
fication, declaring the acts of 1828 and 1832 absolutely 
null and void, within the state of South Carolina ; pro- 



244 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1824-32. 

viding that no appeal should be permitted to the Su- 
preme Court of the United States upon any question 
concerning the validity of the ordinance, or of the laws 
that might be passed to give effect thereto ; prohibiting 
the authorities of the state, or of the general govern- 
ment, from enforcing the payment of duties within the 
state, from and after the 1st day of February, 1833; 
and declaring that any attempt to enforce the revenue 
laws, otherwise than through the civil tribunals, would 
be inconsistent with the longer continuance of South 
Carolina in the Union, and the people of the state would 
then proceed forthwith to the formation of an indepen- 
dent government* This ordinance was accompanied 
by two addresses — one to the people of South Carolina, 
and the other to the people of the other states in the 
Union — setting forth the motives which had prompted 
the adoption of the ordinance, and the principles upon 
which it was founded. These proceedings were had 
with the knowledge, and in part under the advice, of 
Mr. Calhoun ; and, consequently, they met with his ap- 
probation. The Convention then adjourned to meet 
again in March, after the adjournment of Congress. 

The South Carolina legislature being still in session, 
the necessary laws to give effect to the ordinance were 
passed ; and as it had been threatened bv the Unionists 
that the President would direct the collection of the 
revenue by force of arms, " the state placed itself in an 
attitude of military preparation for the defence of its 
position ; organized and armed its own physical force ; 
and succeeded in arousing so determined and excited a 
state of feeling in its citizens, that we think there can 

* Niles' Register, vol. xliii. p. 277. 



1824-32.] ELECTED A SENATOR IN CONGRESS. 245 

be no doubt that it would have maintained its position 
to the last extremity, — a position, manifestly, exceed- 
ingly difficult to be overcome, if thus maintained, by 
any physical power which could have been brought 
against it."* 

The proceedings in South Carolina were followed by 
the proclamation of the President declaring the ordi- 
nance of the State Convention subversive of the federal 
constitution, and his intention to enforce the laws at 
whatever hazard, and warning the people of the state 
against obedience to the ordinance as involving the 
crime of treason against the United States. Meanwhile, 
General Hayne, the able and accomplished senator in 
Congress from South Carolina, had been elected gover- 
nor of the state by the legislature and had entered upon 
the duties of his office ; and in reply to the President's 
proclamation, he issued a counter proclamation defend- 
ing the position assumed by the state, and calling out 
twelve thousand volunteers. 

By the election of General Hayne as governor, a 
vacancy had been produced in the representation of 
the state in Congress. It was important at this par- 
ticular juncture that the state should be represented in 
the federal councils by the ablest of her sons, and all 
eyes were now instinctively turned toward Mr. Calhoun. 
Prior to the adjournment of the legislature, therefore, in 
December, 1832, he was chosen as the successor of 
Mr. Hayne in the senate of the United States. Mr. 
Calhoun was prompt to regard the call of his native 
state ; her claims were paramount ; and he readily con- 
sented to become her champion and defender. 
* Democratic Review, April, 1838. 



CHAPTER IX. 

Journey to Washington— Takes his Seat in the Senate — Special Message 
of the President — Mr. Calhoun's Resolutions — The Force Bill — Speech 
against it— The Debate— Argument of Mr. Webster — Reply of Mr. 
Calhoun— Character of this Effort — Passage of the Compromise Act — 
Peaceful Termination of the Controversy. 

The Senate of the Union was the theatre of Mr. 
Calhoun's proudest triumphs — the great field of his 
usefulness and fame. His journey to Washington was 
like that of Luther to attend the diet at Worms. Out 
of South Carolina public opinion was certainly against 
him, and it was only here and there he found a good 
Frondsberg to whisper in his ear, "If you are sincere, 
and sure of your cause, go on in God's name, and fear 
nothing ; God will not forsake you !" 

It was queried by many whether he would not be 
apprehended, and some stoutly asserted that he would 
be arrested ere he reached Washington. He was called 
the head and front of the nullification cause, but he 
esteemed it an honor to be thus designated. He was 
stigmatized an arch-traitor and denounced as a dis- 
unionist, yet he pursued his way unmoved by clamor 
or denunciation. It was said that he aimed to over- 
throw the Constitution, and that his presence at the 
capitol would endanger the peace and security of the 
Union. But he had no such end in view. His errand 



1833.] TAKES HIS SEAT IN THE SENATE. 247 

was one of peace. He loved the Union too well lightly 
to peril it. He looked upon the state governments as 
the pillars, to use the language of a distinguished states- 
man of New York,* "which support the magnificent 
dome of our national government," and if but one of 
them should be removed, the strength and beauty of the 
edifice reared above them would be gone forever. He 
desired, therefore, to make one more last effort for re- 
dress, and he could not but feel assured, that if passions 
and prejudices did not overrule the judgments of men, 
it would prove successful. 

Having resigned the office of vice-president, he took 
his seat in the Senate shortly after the commencement 
of the session in December, 1832. Many affected to 
doubt, for those who really understood his position 
could not have questioned his readiness to abide by the 
Constitution, whether he would take the oath of office. 
The floor of the senate-chamber and the galleries were 
thronged with spectators. They saw him take the oath 
with a solemnity and dignity appropriate to the oc- 
casion, and then calmly seat himself on the right of the 
chair, among his old political friends, nearly all of whom 
were now arrayed against him. 

In a few days after he entered the Senate, he intro- 
duced a resolution, calling upon the president to lay 
before that body the ordinance of South Carolina, and 
other documents connected with it, which had been 
transmitted to him by the executive of the state. Be- 
fore any action was had upon the resolution, the special 
message of 'the president, dated the 16th January, 
1833, was sent in. This message took strong ground 

* De Witt Clinton. 



248 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1833. 

against South Carolina, and Mr. Calhoun felt that the 
occasion required something in the nature of a reply 
from him. He had been out of the habit of public 
speaking, yet he could not shrink from his duty. He 
arose, therefore, after the reading of the message had 
been concluded, and delivered an eloquent and effective 
speech in defence of his state, which he concluded by 
declaring, most emphatically, that if the national gov- 
ernment should be brought back to the principles of 
1798, he would be the last to abandon it. 

The message of the president and the accompanying 
documents were referred to the committee on the judi- 
ciary, of which Mr. Grundy was chairman, Mr. 
Webster was also a member of the committee, and he 
had publicly avowed his intention to use his utmost 
efforts to put down the nullification doctrines of South 
Carolina. A bill, known as the Force Bill, was soon? 
after reported by this committee, which extended the 
jurisdiction of the courts of the United States in cases- 
arising under the revenue laws, and clothing the presi- 
dent with additional powers. The object of this bill,, 
which was not disguised, v/as to enable the federal ex- 
ecutive to enforce the collection of the revenue in 
South Carolina. Mr. Calhoun desired that the impor- 
tant constitutional question at issue should undergo a 
preliminary discussion, before the bill was called up, 
and with the view of provoking debate, he introduced 
the following resolutions, affirmatory of the great prin- 
ciples for which he and his "beloved and virtuous 
state" were contending : — 

"Resolved, That the people of the several states composing these 
United States are united as parties to a constitutional compact, to which. 



1833.] HIS RESOLUTIONS. 249 

the people of each state acceded as a separate and sovereign com- 
munity, each binding itself, by its own particular ratification ; and that 
the Union, of which the said compact is the bond, is a union between 
the states ratifying the same. 

" Resolved, That the people of the several states, thus united by a 
constitutional compact, in forming that instrument, in creating a General 
Government to carry into effect the objects for which it was formed, 
delegated to that government, for that purpose, certain definite powers, 
to be exercised jointly, reserving, at the same time, each state to itself, 
the residuary mass of powers, to_be exercised by its own separate gov- 
ernment; and that, whenever the General Government assumes the 
exercise of powers not delegated by the compact, its acts are unauthor- 
ized, void, and of no effect ; and that the said government is not made 
the final judge of the powers delegated to it, since that would make 
its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers ; but 
that, as in all other cases of compact among sovereign parties, without 
any common judge, each has an equal right to judge for itself, as well 
of the infraction as of the mode and measure of redress. 

"Resolved, That the assertions, that the people of these United 
States, taken collectively as individuals, are now, or ever have been, 
united on the principle of the social compact, and, as such, are now 
formed into one nation or people ; or that they have ever been so united 
in any one stage of their political existence ; or that the people of the 
several states comprising the Union have not, as members thereof, 
retained their sovereignty ; or that the allegiance of their citizens has 
been transferred to the General Government ; or that they have parted 
with the right of punishing treason through their respective state gov- 
ernments ; or that they have not the right of judging, in the last resort, 
as to the extent of the powers reserved, and, of consequence, of those 
delegated, are not only without foundation in truth, but are contrary 
to the most certain and plain historical facts, and the clearest deductions 
of reason ; and that all exercise of power on the part of the General 
Government, or any of its departments, deriving authority from such 
erroneous assumptions, must of necessity be unconstitutional ; must 
tend directly and inevitably to subvert the sovereignty of the states, 
to destroy the federal character of the Union, and to rear on its ruins a 
consolidated government, without constitutional check or limitation, and 
which must necessarily terminate in the loss of liberty itself." 

These resolutions covered the whole ground in dis- 

11* 



250 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1833. 

pute, and it was but just that the principles, involved 
should be settled before proceeding to the consideration 
of the bill ; for if South Carolina was right in her po- 
sition, the passage of the bill would be a gross act of 
injustice. But in the progress of the controversy, many 
bad feelings had been aroused on both sides, and a dis- 
position was manifested on the part of the supporters 
of the administration, to press matters to a crisis at 
once. Under the influence of this prevailing disposi- 
tion, the resolutions of Mr. Calhoun were laid upon 
the table, and the bill taken up for discussion. Previous 
to this, however, Mr. Grundy had offered a series of 
resolutions declaring the several acts of Congress lay- 
ing duties on imports to be constitutional, and denying 
the power of a single state to annul those law r s or any 
other constitutional law; but conceding the point in 
favor of South Carolina, that with respect to an uncon- 
stitutional law, the states themselves were the final 
judges, and possessed the power of annulling it. Mr. 
Webster, and other senators occupying the extreme 
federal ground upon this question, did not, of course, 
approve of Mr. Grundy's resolutions, but they supported 
the Force Bill with great earnestness. 

The debate was ably conducted. Many of the re- 
publican senators from the southern states opposed the 
bill in effective speeches, and resisted its passage at 
every step. Not a single senator offered to take up 
the gauntlet thrown down by Mr. Calhoun while the 
bill was pending before the Senate, although Mr. Web- 
ster, in particular, was well known to differ from him 
toto coslo. It had been the intention of the former to 
reply to Mr. Webster, but when it became known that 



1832-33.] SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL. 251 

he would not speak first, Mr. Calhoun himself took the 
floor in opposition to the measure, and in defence of 
South Carolina. He also replied to the personal attacks 
which had been made upon him, and repelled, in elo- 
quent and indignant terms, the charge, that he had 
been influenced by disappointed ambition. 

SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL. 

Mr. President — I know not which is most objectionable, the provision 
of the bill, or the temper in which its adoption has been urged. If the 
extraordinary powers with which the bill proposes to clothe the 
executive, to the utter prostration of the Constitution and the rights of 
the states, be calculated to impress our minds w T ith alarm at the rapid 
progress of despotism in our country ; the zeal with which every 
circumstance calculated to misrepresent or exaggerate the conduct of 
Carolina in the controversy, is seized on with a view to excite hostility 
against her, but too plainly indicates the deep decay of that brotherly 
feeling which once existed between these states, and to which we are 
indebted for our beautiful federal system, and by the continuance of 
which alone it can be preserved. It is not my intention to advert to all 
these misrepresentations, but there are some so well calculated to 
mislead the mind as to the real character of the controversy, and hold 
up the state in a light so odious, that I do not feel myself justified in 
permitting them to pass unnoticed. 

Among thetn, one of the most prominent is the false statement that 
the object of South Carolina is to exempt herself from her share of the 
public burdens, while she participates in the advantages of the govern- 
ment. If the charge were true — if the state were capable of being 
actuated by such low and unworthy motives, mother as I consider her, 
I would not stand up on this floor to vindicate her conduct. Among 
her faults, and faults I will not deny she has, no one has ever yet 
charged her with that low and most sordid of vices — avarice. Her con- 
duct, on all occasions, has been marked with the very opposite quality. 
From the commencement of the Revolution — from its first breaking out 
at Boston till this hour, no state has been more profuse of its blood in 
the cause of the country, nor has any contributed so largely to the 
common treasury in proportion to wealth and population. She has in 



252 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [l 832-33. 

that proportion contributed more to the exports of the Union, on the 
exchange of which with the rest of the world the greater portion of the 
public burden has been levied, than any other state. No : the con- 
troversy is not such as has been stated ; the state does not seek to 
participate in the advantages of the government without contributing 
her full share to the public treasury. Her object is far different. A 
deep constitutional question lies at the bottom of the controversy. The 
real question at issue is, lias the government a right to impose burdens 
on the capital and industry of one portion of the country, not with 
a view to revenue, but to benefit another ? a\id I must be permitted to 
say that, after the long and deep agitation of tins controversy, it is with 
surprise that I perceive so strong a disposition to misrepresent its real 
character. To correct the impression which those misrepresentations 
are calculated to make, I will dwell on the point under consideration 
for a few moments lonsrer. 

The Federal Government has, by an express provision of the Con- 
stitution, the right to lay duties on imports. The state has never denied 
or resisted this right, nor even thought of so doing. The government 
has, however, not been contented with exercising this power as she had 
a right to do, but has gone a step beyond it, by laying imposts, not for 
revenue, but for protection. This the state considers as an unconstitu- 
tional exercise of power — highly injurious and oppressive to her and 
the other staple states, and has, accordingly, met it with the most 
determined resistance. I do not intend to enter, at this time, into the 
argument as to the unconstitutionality of the protective system. It is 
not necessary. It is sufficient that the power is nowhere granted ; and 
that, from the journals of the Convention which formed the Constitution, 
it would seem that it was refused. In support of the journals, I might 
cite the statement of Luther Martin, which has already been referred 
to, to show that the Convention, so far from conferring the power on the 
Federal Government, left to the state the right tv> impose duties on im- 
ports, with the express view of enabling the several states to protect 
their own manufactures. Notwithstanding this. Congress has assumed, 
without any warrant from the Constitution, the right of exercising this 
most important power, and has so exercised it as to impose a ruinous 
burden on the labor and capital of the state of South Carolina, by 
which her resources are exhausted — the enjoyments of her citizens 
curtailed — the means of education contracted — and all her interests 
essentially and injuriously affected. We have been sneeringly told that 



1832-33.] SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL. 253 

she is a small state ; that her population does not much exceed half a 
million of souls ; and that more than one half are not of the European 
race. The facts are so. I know she never can be a great state, and 
that the only distinction to which she can aspire must be based on the 
moral and intellectual acquirements of her sons. To the development 
of these much of her attention has been directed ; but this restrictive 
system, which has so unjustly exacted the proceeds of her labor, to be 
bestowed on other sections, has so impaired the resources of the state, 
that, if not speedily arrested, it will dry up the means of education, and 
with it deprive her of the only source through which she can aspire to 
distinction. 

There is another misstatement, as to the nature of the controversy, so 
frequently made in debate, and so well calculated to mislead, that I feel 
bound to notice it. It has been said that South Carolina claims the 
right to annul the Constitution and laws of the United States ; and to 
rebut this supposed claim, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rives) has 
gravely quoted the Constitution, to prove that the Constitution, and the 
laws made in pursuance thereof, are the supreme laws of the land — as 
if the state claimed the right to act contrary to this provision of the 
Constitution. Nothing can be more erroneous : her object is not to 
resist laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, but those made 
without its authority, and which encroach on her reserved powers. She 
claims not even the right of judging of the delegated powers ; but of 
those that are reserved, and to resist the former, when they encroach 
upon the latter. I will pause to illustrate this important point. 

All must admit that there are delegated and reserved powers, and 
that the powers reserved are reserved to the states respectively. The 
powers, then, of the system are divided between the general and the 
state government ; and the point immediately under consideration is, 
whether a state has any right to judge as to the extent of its reserved 
powers, and to defend them against the encroachments of the General 
Government. Without going deeply into this point at this stage of the 
argument, or looking into the nature and origin of the government, there 
is a simple view of the subject which I consider as conclusive. The 
very idea of a divided power implies the right on the part of the state 
for which I contend. The expression is metaphorical when applied to 
power. Every one readily understands that the division of matter con- 
sists in the separation of the parts. But in this sense it is not applica- 
ble to power. What, then, is meant by a division of power ? I cannot 



254 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1832-33. 

conceive of a division, without giving an equal right to each to judge of 
the extent of the power allotted fo each. Such right I hold to be 
essential to the existence of a division ; and that, to give to either party 
the conclusive right of judging, not only of the share allotted to it, but 
of that allotted to the other, is to annul the division, and would confer 
the whole power on the party vested with such right. 

But it is contended that the Constitution has conferred on the Supreme 
Court the right of judging between the states and the General Govern- 
ment. Those who make this objection overlook, I conceive, an impor- 
tant provision of the Constitution. By turning to the 10 th amended 
article, it will be seen that the reservation of power to the states is not 
only against the powers delegated to Congress, but against the United 
States themselves ; and extends, of course, as well to the judiciary as to 
the other departments of the government. The article provides, that 
all powers not delegated to the United States, or prohibited by it to the 
states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. This 
presents the inquiry, What powers are delegated to the United States ? 
They may be classed under four divisions : first, those that are delegated 
by the states to each other, by virtue of which the Constitution may be 
altered or amended by three fourths of the states, when, without which, 
it would have required the unanimous vote of all ; next, the powers 
conferred on Congress ; then those on the President ; and, finally, those 
on the judicial department— all of which are particularly enumerated 
in the parts of the Constitution which organize the respective depart- 
ments. The reservation of powers to the states is, as I have said, 
against the whole, and is as fall against the judicial as it is against the 
executive and legislative departments of the government. It cannot be 
claimed for the one without claiming it for the whole, and without, in 
fact, annulling this important provision of the Constitution. 

Against this, as it appears to me, conclusive view of the subject, it 
has been urged that this power is expressly conferred on the Supreme 
Court by that portion of the Constitution which provides that the judi- 
cial power shall extend to all cas^ in law and equity arising under 
the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made 
under their authority. I believe the assertion to be utterly destitute 
of any foundation. It obviously is the intention of the Constitution 
simply to make the judicial power commensurate with the law-making 
and treaty-making powers ; and to vest it with the right of applying 
the Constitution, the laws, and the treaties, to the cases which might 



1832-33.] SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL. 255 

arise under them ; and not to make it the judge of the Constitution, 
the laws, and the treaties themselves. In fact, the power of applying 
the laws to the facts of the case, and deciding upon such application, 
constitutes, in truth, the judicial power. The distinction between such 
power, and that of judging of the laws, will be perfectly apparent 
when we advert to what is the acknowledged power of the court in 
reference to treaties or compacts between sovereigns. It is perfectly 
established, that the courts have no right to judge of the violation of 
treaties ; and that, in reference to them, their power is limited to the 
right of judging simply of the violation of rights under them ; and 
that the right of judging of infractions belongs exclusively to the par- 
ties themselves, and not to the courts : of which we have an example 
in the French treaty, which was declared by Congress null and void, in 
consequence of its violation by the government of France. Without 
such declaration, had a French citizen sued a citizen of this country 
under the treaty, the court could have taken no cognizance of its in- 
fraction ; nor, after such a declaration, would it have heard any argu- 
ment or proof going to show that the treaty had not been violated. 

The declaration of itself is conclusive on the court. But it will be 
asked how the court obtained the powers to pronounce a law or treaty 
unconstitutional, when they come in conflict with that instrument. I 
do not deny that it possesses the right, but I can by no means concede 
that it was derived from the Constitution. It had its origin in the 
necessity of the case. Where there are two or more rules established, 
one from a higher, the other from a lower authority, which may come 
into conflict in applying them to a particular case, the judge cannot 
avoid pronouncing in favor of the superior against the inferior. It is 
from this necessity, and this alone, that the power which is now set up 
to overrule the rights of the states against an express provision of the 
Constitution was derived. It had no other origin. That I have traced 
it to its true source, will be manifest from the fact that it is a power 
which, so far from being conferred exclusively on the Supreme Court, 
as is insisted, belongs to every court — inferior and sivperior — state and 
general — and even to foreign courts. 

But the senator from Delaware (Mr. Clayton) relies on the journals 
of the Convention to prove that it was the intention of that body to 
confer on the Supreme Court the right of deciding in the last resort 
between a state and the General Government. I will not follow him 
through the journals, as I do not deem that to be necessary to refute 



256 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1832-33. 

his argument. It is sufficient for this purpose to state, that Mr. Rut- 
ledge reported a resolution, providing expressly that the -United States 
and the states might be parties before the Supreme Court. If this 
proposition had been adopted, I would ask the senator -whether this 
very controversy between the United States and South Carolina might 
not have been brousrht before the court \ I would also ask him 
whether it can be brought before the court as the Constitution now 
stands ? If he answers the former in the affirmative, and the latter in 
the negative, as he must, then it is clear, his elaborate argument to the 
contrary notwithstanding, that the report of Mr. Rutledge was not, in 
substance, adopted as he contended ; and that the journals, so far 
from supporting, are in direct opposition to the position which he at- 
tempts to maintain. I might push the argument much further against 
the power of the court, but I do not deem it necessary, at least in this 
stage of the discussion. If the views which have already been pre- 
sented be correct, and I do not see how they can be resisted, the con- 
clusion is inevitable, that the reserved powers were reserved equally 
against every department of the government, and as strongly against 
the judicial as against the other departments, and, of course, were left 
under the exclusive will of the states. 

There still remains another misrepresentation of the conduct of the 
state which has been made with the vie\v, of exciting odium. I allude 
to the charge, that South Carolina supported the tariff of 1816, and is, 
therefore, responsible for the protective system. To determine the 
truth of this charge, it becomes necessary to ascertain the real charac- 
ter of that law — whether it was a tariff for revenue or for protection — 
which presents the inquiry, What was the condition of the country at 
that period ? The late war with Great Britain had just terminated, 
which, with the restrictive system that preceded it, had diverted a 
large amount of capital and industry from commerce to manufactures, 
particularly to the cotton and woollen branches. There was a debt, at 
the same time, of one hundred and thirty millions of dollars hanging 
over the country, and the heavy war duties were still in existence. 
Under these circumstances, the question was presented, to what point 
the duties ought to be reduced. That question involved another — at 
what time the debt ought to be paid ; which was a question of policy 
involving in its consideration all the circumstances connected with the 
then condition of the country. Among the most prominent arguments 
in favor of an early discharge of the debt was, that the high duties 



1832-33.] SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL. 257 

■which it would require to effect it would have, at the same time, the 
effect of sustaining the infant manufactures, which had been forced up 
under the circumstances to which I have adverted. This view of the 
subject had a decided influence in determining in favor of an early 
payment of the debt. The sinking fund was, accordingly, raised from 
seven to ten millions of dollars, with the provision to apply the sur- 
plus which might remain in the treasury as a contingent appropriation 
to that fund ; and the duties were graduated to meet this increased 
expenditure. It was thus that the policy and justice of protecting the 
large amount of capital and industry which had been diverted by the 
measures of the government into new channels, as I have stated, was 
combined with the fiscal action of the government, and which, while it 
secured a prompt payment of the debt, prevented the immense losses 
to the manufacturers which would have followed a sudden and great 
reduction. Still, revenue was the main object, and protection but the 
incidental. The bill to reduce the duties was reported by the Com- 
mittee of Ways and Means, and not of Manufactures, and it proposed 
a heavy reduction on the then existing rate of duties. But what of 
itself, without other evidence, was decisive as to the character of the 
bill, is the fact that it fixed a much higher rate of duties on the unpro- 
tected than on the protected articles. I will enumerate a few leading 
articles only : woollen and cotton above the value of 25 cents on the 
square yard, though they were the leading objects of protection, were 
subject to a permanent duty of only 20 per cent. Iron, another leading 
article among the protected, had a protection of not more than 9 per 
cent, as fixed by the act, and of but fifteen as reported in the bill, 
Hhese rates were all below the average duties as fixed in the act, in- 
cluding the protected, the unprotected, and even the free articles. I 
have entered into some calculation, in order to ascertain the average 
rate of duties under the act. There is some uncertainty in the data, 
but I feel assured that it is not less than thirty per cent, ad valorem : 
showing an excess of the average duties above that imposed on the 
protected articles enumerated of more than 10 per cent., and thus 
clearly establishing the character of the measure — that it was for rev- 
enue, and not protection. 

Looking back, even at this distant period, with all our experience, I 
perceive but two errors in the act : the one in reference to iron, and the 
other the minimum duty on coarse cottons. As to the former, I con- 
ceive that the bill, as reported, proposed a duty relatively too low, 



258 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1832-33. 

which was still farther reduced in its passage through Congress. The 
duty, at first, was fixed at seventy-five cents the hundred weight ; but, 
in the last stage of its passage, it was reduced, by a sort of caprice, 
occasioned by an unfortunate motion, to forty-five cents. This injustice 
was severely felt in Pennsylvania, the state, above all others, most pro- 
ductive of iron ; and was the principal cause of that great reaction 
which has since thrown her so decidedly on the side of the protective 
policy. The other error was that as to coarse cottons, on which the 
duty was as much too high as that on iron was too low. It introduced, 
besides, the obnoxious minimum principle, which has since been so mis- 
chievously extended ; and to that extent, I am constrained, in candor, 
to acknowledge, as 1 wish to disguise nothing, the protective principle 
was recognized by the act of 1816. How this was overlooked at the 
time, it is not in my power to say. It escaped my observation, which 
I can account for only on the ground that the principle was then new, 
and that my attention was engaged by another important subject — the 
question of the currency, then so urgent, and with which, as chairman 
of the committee, I was particularly charged. "With these exceptions, I 
again repeat, I see nothing in the bill to condemn ; yet it is on the ground 
that the members from the state voted for the bill, that the attempt is 
now made to hold up Carolina as responsible for the whole system of 
protection which has since followed, though she has resisted its progress 
in every stage. "Was there ever greater injustice ? And how is it to 
be accounted for, but as forming a part of that systematic misrepresen- 
tation and calumny which has been directed for so many years, without 
interruption, against that gallant and generous state ? And why has 
she thus been assailed ? Merely because she abstained from taking 
any part in the Presidential canvass — believing that it had degenerated 
into a mere system of imposition on the people — controlled, almost ex- 
clusively, by those whose object it is to obtain the patronage of the 
government, and that without regard to principle or policy. Standing 
apart from what she considered a contest in which the public had no 
interest, she has been assailed by both parties with a fury altogether 
unparalleled; but which, pursuing the course which she believed liberty 
and duty required, she has met with a firmness equal to the fierceness 
of the assault. In the midst of this attack, I have not escaped. With 
a view of inflicting a wound on the state through me, I have been held 
up as the author of the protective system, and one of its most strenuous 
advocates. It is with pain that I allude to myself on so deep and grave 



1832-33.] SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL. 259 

a subject as that now under discussion, and which, I sincerely believe, 
involves the liberty of the country. I now regret that, under the sense 
of injustice which the remarks of a senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Wilkins) excited for the moment, I hastily gave my pledge to defend 
myself against the charge which has been made in reference to my 
course in 1816: not that there will be any difficulty in repelling the 
charge, but because I feel a deep reluctance in turning the discussion, 
in any degree, from a subject of so much magnitude to one of so little 
importance as the consistency or inconsistency of myself, or any other 
individual, particularly in connection with an event so long since passed. 
But for this hasty pledge, I would have remained silent, as to my own 
course, on this occasion, and would have borne with patience and calm- 
ness this, with the many other misrepresentations with which I have 
been so incessantly assailed for so many years. 

The charge that I was the author of the protective system has no 
other foundation but that I, in common with the almost entire South, 
gave my support to the tariff of 1816. It is true that I advocated that 
measure, for which I may rest my defence, without taking any other, 
on the ground that it was a tariff for revenue, and not for protection, 
which I have established beyond the power of controversy. But my 
speech on the occasion has been brought in judgment against me by the 
senator from Pennsylvania. I have since cast my eyes over the speech ; 
and I will surprise, I have no doubt, the senator, by telling him that, 
with the exception of some hasty and unguarded expressions, I retract 
nothing I uttered on that occasion. I only ask that I may be judged, 
in reference to it, in that spirit of fairness and justice which is due to 
the occasion : taking into consideration the circumstances under which 
it was delivered, and bearing in mind that the subject was a tariff for 
revenue, and not for protection ; for reducing, and not raising the 
revenue. But, before I explain the then condition of the country, from 
which my main arguments in favor of the measure were drawn, it is 
nothing but an act of justice to myself that I should state a fact in con- 
nection with my speech, that is necessary to explain what I have called 
hasty and unguarded expressions. My speech was an impromptu, 
and, as such, I apologized to the house, as appears from the speech as 
printed, for offering my sentiments on the question without having duly 
reflected on the subject. It w T as delivered at the request of a friend, 
when I had not previously the least intention of addressing the house. 
I allude to Samuel D. Ingham, then and now, as I am proud to say, a 



260 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1832-33. 

personal and political friend — a man of talents and integrity — with a 
clear head, and firm and patriotic heart ; then among the leading mem- 
bers of the house : in the palmy state of his political glory, though now 
for a moment depressed — depressed, did I say ? no ! it is his state 
•which is depressed — Pennsylvania, and not Samuel D. Ingham ! Penn- 
sylvania, which has deserted him under circumstances which, instead 
of depressing, ought to have elevated him in her estimation. He came 
to me, when sitting at my desk -writing, and said that the house was 
falling into some confusion, accompanying it with a remark, that I knew 
how difficult it was to rally so large a body when once broken on a tax 
bill, as had been experienced during the late war. Having a higher 
opinion of my influence than it deserved, he requested me to say some- 
thing to prevent the confusion. I replied that I was at a loss what to 
say ; that I had been busily engaged on the currency, which was then 
in great confusion, and which, as I have stated, had been placed par- 
ticularly under my charge, as the chairman of the committee on that 
subject. He repeated his request, and the speech which the senator 
from Pennsylvania has complimented so highly was the result. 

I will ask whether the facts stated ought not, in justice, to be borne 
in mind by those who would hold me accountable, not only for the 
general scope of the speech, but for every word and sentence which it 
contains ? But, in asking this question, it is not my intention to repu- 
diate the speech. All I ask is, that I may be judged by the rules 
which, in justice, belong to the case. Let it be recollected that the bill 
was a revenue bill, and, of course, that it was constitutional. I need 
not remind the senate that, when the measure is constitutional, all 
arguments calculated to show its beneficial operation may be legiti- 
mately pressed into service, without taking into consideration whether 
the subject to which the arguments refer be within the sphere of the 
Constitution or not. If, for instance, a question were before the body 
to lay a duty on Bibles, and a motion were made to reduce the duty, 
or admit Bibles duty free, who could doubt that the argument in favor 
of the motion, that the increased circulation of the Bible would be in 
favor of the morality and religion of the country, would be strictly pro- 
per ? Or who would suppose that he who adduced it had committed 
himself on the constitutionality of taking the religion or morals of the 
country under the charge of the Federal Government? Again: sup- 
pose the question to be to raise the duty on silk, or any other article 
of luxury, and that it should be supported on the ground that it was an 



1832-33.] SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL. 261 

article mainly consumed by the rich and extravagant, could it be fairly 
inferred that, in the opinion of the speaker, Congress had a right to 
pass sumptuary laws ? I only ask that these plain rules may be ap- 
plied to my argument on the tariff of 1816. They turn almost entirely 
on the benefits which manufactures conferred on the country in time 
of war, and which no one could doubt. The country had recently 
passed through such a state. The world was at that time deeply 
agitated by the effects of the great conflict which had so long raged in 
Europe, and which no one could tell how soon again might return. 
Bonaparte had but recently been overthrown : the whole southern part 
of this continent was in a state of revolution, and was threatened with 
the interference of the Holy Alliance, which, had it occurred, must 
almost necessarily have involved this country in a dangerous conflict. 
It was under these circumstances that I delivered the speech, in which 
I urged the house that, in the adjustment of the tariff, reference ought 
to be had to a state of war as well as peace, and that its provisions 
ought to be fixed on the compound views of the two periods — making 
some sacrifice in peace, in order that less might be made in war. Was 
this principle false ? and, in urging it, did I commit myself to that sys- 
tem of oppression since grown up, and which has for its object the 
enriching of one portion of the country at the expense of the other ? 

The plain rule in all such cases is, that when a measure is proposed, 
the first thing is to ascertain its constitutionality ; and, that being ascer- 
tained, the next is its expediency ; which last opens the whole field of 
argument for and against. Every topic may be urged calculated to prove 
it wise or unwise ; so in a bill to raise imposts. It must first be ascer- 
tained that the bill is based on the principles of revenue, and that the 
money raised is necessary for the wants of the country. These being 
ascertained, every argument, direct and indirect, may be fairly offered, 
which may go to show that under all the circumstances, the provisions 
of the bill are proper or improper. Had this plain and simple rule 
been adhered to, we should never have heard of the complaint against 
Carolina. Her objection is not against the improper modification of a 
bill acknowledged to be for revenue, but that, under the name of imposts, 
a power essentially different from the taxing power is exercised — par- 
taking much more of the character of a penalty than a tax. Nothing is 
more common than that things closely resembling in appearance should 
widely and essentially differ in their character. Arsenic, for instance, 
resembles flour, yet one is a deadly poison, and the other that which 



262 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1832-33. 

constitutes the staff of life. So duties imposed, whether for revenue or 
protection, may be called imposts ; though nominally and apparently 
the same, yet they differ essentially in their real character. 

I shall now return to my speech on the tariff of 1816. To determine 
what my opinions really were on the subject of protection at that time, 
it will be proper to advert to my sentiments before and after that 
period. My sentiments preceding 1816, on this subject, are matter of 
record. I came into Congress, in 1812, a devoted friend and supporter 
of the then administration ; yet one of my first efforts was to brave the 
administration, by opposing its favorite measure, the restrictive system 
— embargo, non-intercourse, and all — and that upon the principle of 
free trade. The system remained in fashion for a time ; but, after the 
overthrow of Bonaparte, I reported a bill from the Committee on Foreign 
Relations, to repeal the whole system of restrictive measures. While 
the bill was under consideration, a worthy man, then a member of the 
house (Mr. M'Kim, of Baltimore), moved to except the non-importation 
act, which he supported on the ground of encouragement to manufac- 
tures. I resisted the motion on the very grounds on which Mr. M'Kim 
supported it, I maintained that the manufacturers were then receiving 
too much protection, and warned its friends that the withdrawal of the 
protection which the war and the high duties then afforded would cause 
great embarrassment ; and that the true policy, in the mean time, was 
io admit foreign goods as freely as possible, in order to diminish the an- 
ticipated embarrassment on the return of peace ; intimating, at the same 
time, my desire to see the tariff revised, with a view of affording a 
moderate and permanent protection. 

Such was my conduct before 1816. Shortly after that period I left 
Congress, and had no opportunity of making known my sentiments in 
reference to the protective system, which shortly after began to be agi- 
tated. But I have the most conclusive evidence that I considered the 
arrangement of the revenue, in 1816, as growing out of the necessity of 
the case, and due to the consideration of justice ; but that, even at that 
early period, I was not without my fears that even that arrangement 
would lead to abuse and future difficulties. I regret that I have been 
compelled to dwell so long on myself; but trust that, whatever censure 
may be incurred, will not be directed against me, but against those who 
have drawn my conduct into the controversy ; and who may hope, by 
assailing my motives, to wound the cause with which I am proud to be 
identified. 



1832-33.] SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL. 



263 



I may add, that all the Southern States voted with South Carolina in 
support of the bill : not that they had any interest in manufactures, but 
on the ground that they had supported the war, and, of course, felt a 
corresponding obligation to sustain those establishments which had 
grown up under the encouragement it had incidentally afforded ; while 
most of the New England members were opposed to the measure, prin- 
cipally, as I believe, on opposite principles. 

I have now, I trust, satisfactorily repelled the charge against the 
state, and myself personally, in reference to the tariff of 1816. What- 
ever support the state has given the bill, originated in the most disin- 
terested motives. 

There was not within the limits of the state, so far as my memory 
serves me, a single cotton or woollen establishment. Her whole depen- 
dence was on agriculture, and the cultivation of two great staples, rice 
and cotton. Her obvious policy was to keep open the market of the 
world unchecked and unrestricted : to buy cheap, and to sell high ; but 
from a feeling of kindness, combined with a sense of justice, she added 
her support to the bill. We had been told by the agents of the manu- 
facturers that the protection which the measure afforded w T ould be suf- 
ficient ; to which we the more readily conceded, as it was considered a 
final adjustment of the question. 

Let us now turn our eyes forward, and see what has been the conduct 
of the parties to this arrangement. Have Carolina and the South dis- 
turbed this adjustment ? No : they have never raised their voice in a 
single instance against it, even though this measure, moderate, compara- 
tively, as it is, was felt with no inconsiderable pressure on their inter- 
ests. Was this example imitated on the opposite side ? Far other- 
wise. Scarcely had the president signed his name, before application 
was made for an increase of duties, which was repeated, with demands 
continually growing, till the passage of the act of 1828. What course 
now, I would ask, did it become Carolina to pursue in reference to these 
demands ? Instead of acquiescing in them, because she had acted gen- 
erously in adjusting the tariff of 1816, she saw, in her generosity on 
that occasion, additional motives for that firm and decided resistance 
which she has since made against the system of protection. She accord- 
ingly commenced a systematic opposition to all farther encroachments, 
which continued from 1818 till 1828 : by discussions and by resolutions, 
by remonstrances and by protests through her Legislature. These all 
proved insufficient to stem the current of encroachment ; but, notwith- 



264 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1832-33. 

standing the heavy pressure on her industry, she never despaired of 
relief till the passage of the act of 1828 — that bill of abominations — en- 
gendered by avarice and political intrigue. Its adoption opened the 
eyes of the state, and gave a new character to the controversy. Till 
then, the question had been, whether the protective system was consti- 
tutional and expedient ; but, after that, she no longer considered the 
question whether the right of regulating the industry of the states was 
a reserved or delegated power, but what right a state possesses to de- 
fend her reserved powers against the encroachments of the Federal 
Government : a question on the decision of which the value of all the 
reserved powers depends. The passage of the act of 1828, with all its 
objectionable features, and under the odious circumstances under which 
it was adopted, almost, if not entirely, closed the door of hope through 
the General Government. It afforded conclusive evidence that no rea- 
sonable prospect of relief from Congress could be entertained ; yet the 
near approach of the period of the payment of the public debt, and the 
elevation of General Jackson to the presidency, still afforded a ray of 
hope — not so strong, however, as to prevent the state from turning her 
eyes for final relief to her reserved powers. 

Under these circumstances commenced that inquiry into the nature 
and extent of the reserved powers of a state, and the means which they 
afford of resistance against the encroachments of the General Govern- 
ment, which has been pursued with so much zeal and energy, and, I 
may add, intelligence. Never was there a political discussion carried 
on with greater activity, and which appealed more directly to the 
intelligence of a community. Throughout the whole, no address has 
been made to the low and vulgar passions ; but, on the contrary, the 
discussion has turned upon the higher principles of political economy, 
connected with the operations of the tariff system, calculated to show its 
real bearing on the interests of the state, and on the structure of our 
political system ; and to show the true character of the relations between 
the state and the General Government, and the means which the states 
possess of defending those powers which they reserved in forming the 
Federal Government. 

In this great canvass, men of the most commanding talents and 
acquirements have engaged with the greatest ardor; and the people 
have been addressed through every channel — by essays in the public 
press, and by speeches in their public assemblies — until they have 
become thoroughly instructed on the nature of the oppression, and 



1832-33.] SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL. 265 

on the rights -which they possess, under the Constitution, to throw 
it off. 

If gentlemen suppose that the stand taken by the people of Carolina 
rests on passion and delusion, they are wholly mistaken. The case is 
far otherwise. ~No community, from the legislator to the ploughman, 
were ever better instructed in their rights ; and the resistance on which 
the state has resolved is the result of mature reflection, accompanied 
with a deep conviction that their rights have been violated, and that the 
means of redress which they have adopted are consistent with the 
principles of the Constitution. 

But while this active canvass was carried on, which looked to the 
reserved powers as the final means of redress if all others failed, the 
state at the same time cherished a hope, as I have already stated, that 
the election of General Jackson to the presidency would prevent the 
necessity of a resort to extremities. He was identified with the interests 
of the staple states ; and, having the same interests, it was believed that 
his great popularity — a popularity of the strongest character, as it 
rested on military services — would enable him, as they hoped, gradually 
to bring down the system of protection, without shock or injury to any 
interest. Under these views, the canvass in favor of General Jackson's 
election to the presidency was carried on with great zeal, in conjunction 
with that active inquiry into the reserved powers of the states on 
which final reliance was placed. But little did the people of Carolina 
dream that the man whom they were thus striving to elevate to the 
highest seat of power would disappoint all then- hopes. Man is, indeed, 
ignorant of the future ; nor was there ever a stronger illustration of the 
observation than is afforded by the result of that election ! The very 
event on which they had built their hopes has been turned against them, 
and the very individual to whom they looked as a deliverer, and whom, 
under that impression, they strove for so many years to elevate to 
power, is now the most powerful instrument in the hands of his and 
their bitterest opponents to put down them and their cause ! 

Scarcely had he been elected, when it became apparent, from the 
organization of his cabinet, and other indications, that all their expecta- 
tions of relief through him were blasted. The admission of a single 
individual into the cabinet, under the circumstances which accompanied 
that admission, threw all into confusion. The mischievous influence 
over the President, through which this individual was admitted into the 
cabinet, soon became apparent. Instead of turning his eyes forward to 

12 



266 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1832-33. 

the period of the payment of the public debt, which was then near at 
hand, and to the present dangerous political crisis, which was inevitable 
unless averted by a timely and wise system of measures, the attention 
of the President was absorbed by mere party arrangements, and 
circumstances too disreputable to be mentioned here, except by the 
most distant allusion. 

Here I must pause for a moment to repel a charge which has been so 
often made, and which even the President has reiterated in his proclama- 
tion — the charge that I have been actuated, in the part which I have 
taken, by feelings of disappointed ambition. I again repeat, that I 
deeply regret the necessity of noticing myself in so important a discus- 
sion ; and that nothing can induce me to advert to my own course but 
the conviction that it is due to the cause, at which a blow is aimed 
through me. It is only in this view that I notice it. 

It illy became the chief magistrate to make this charge. The course 
which the state took, and which led to the present controversy between 
her and the General Government, was taken as far back as 1828 — in the 
very midst of that severe canvass which placed him in power — and in 
that very canvass Carolina openly avowed and zealously maintained 
those very principles which he, the chief magistrate, now officially pro- 
nounces to be treason and rebellion. That was the period at which he 
ought to have spoken. Having remained silent then, and having, under 
his approval, implied by that silence, received the support and the vote 
of the state, I, if a sense of decorum did not prevent it, might recriminate 
with the double charge of deception and ingratitude. My object, how- 
ever, is not to assail the President, but to defend myself against a most 
unfounded charge. The time alone at which the course upon which this 
charge of disappointed ambition is founded, will of itself repel it, in the 
eye of every unprejudiced and honest man. The doctrine which I now 
sustain, under the present difficulties, I openly avowed and maintained 
immediately after the act of 1828, that " bill of abominations," as it has 
been so often and properly termed Was I at that period disappointed 
in any views of ambition which I might be supposed to entertain ] I 
was Vice-president of the United States, elected by an overwhelming 
majority. I was a candidate for re-election on the ticket with General 
Jackson himself, with a certain prospect of a triumphant success of that 
ticket, and with a fair prospect of the highest office to which an American 
citizen can aspire. What was my course under these prospects ? Did 
I look to my own advancement, or to an honest and faithful discbarge 



1832-33.] SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL. 267 

of my duty ? Let facts speak for themselves. When the bill to which 
I have referred came from the other house to the Senate, the almost 
universal impression was, that its fate would depend upon my casting 
vote. It was known that, as the bill then stood, the Senate was nearly 
equally divided ; and as it was a combined measure, originating with the 
politicians and manufacturers, and intended as much to bear upon the 
Presidential election as to protect manufactures, it was believed that, 
as a stroke of political policy, its fate would be made to depend on my 
vote, in order to defeat General Jackson's election, as well as my own. 
The friends of General Jackson were alarmed, and I was earnestly 
entreated to leave the chair in order to avoid the responsibility, under 
the plausible argument that, if the Senate should be equally divided, the 
bill would be lost without the aid of my casting vote. The reply to this 
entreaty was, that no consideration personal to myself could induce me 
to take such a course ; that I considered the measure as of the most 
dangerous character, and calculated to produce the most fearful crisis ; 
that the payment of the public debt was just at hand ; and that the 
great increase of revenue which it would pour into the treasury would 
accelerate the approach of that period, and that the country would be 
placed in the most trying of situations — with an immense revenue 
without the means of absorption upon any legitimate or constitutional 
object of appropriation, and would be compelled to submit to all the 
corrupting consequences of a large surplus, or to make a sudden reduc- 
tion of the rates of duties, which would prove ruinous to the very 
interests which were then forcing the passage of the bill. Under these 
views I determined to remain in the chair, and if the bill came to me, to 
give my casting vote against it, and in doing so, to give my reasons at 
large ; but at the same time I informed my friends that I would retire 
from the ticket, so that the election of General Jackson might not be 
embarrassed by any act of mine Sir, I was amazed at the folly and 
infatuation of that period. So completely absorbed was Congress in 
the game of ambition and avarice, from the double impulse of the 
manufacturers and politicians, that none but a few appeared to anticipate 
the present crisis, at which now all are alarmed, but which is the 
inevitable result of what was then done. As to myself, I clearly fore- 
saw what has since followed. The road of ambition lay open before 
me — I had but to follow the corrupt tendency of the times — but I 
chose to tread the rugged path of duty. 

It was thus that the reasonable hope of relief through the election of 



268 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1832-33. 

General Jackson was blasted ; but still one other hope remained, that 
the final discharge of the public debt — an event near at hand — would 
remove our burden. That event would leave in the treasury a large 
surplus; a surplus that could not be expended under the most extrava- 
gant schemes of appropriation, having the least color of decency or con- 
stitutionality. That event at last arrived. At the last session of Con- 
gress, it was avowed on all sides that the public debt, for all practical 
purposes, was in fact paid, the small surplus remaining being nearly 
covered by the money in the treasury and the bonds for duties, which 
had already accrued ; but with the arrival of this event our last hope 
was doomed to be disappointed. After a long session of many months, 
and the most earnest effort on the part of South Carolina and the other 
Southern States to obtain relief, all that could be effected was a small 
reduction in the amount of the duties ; but a reduction of such a char- 
acter, that, while it diminished the amount of burden, distributed that 
burden more unequally than even the obnoxious act of 1828 ; reversing 
the principle adopted by the bill of 1816, of laying higher duties on the 
unprotected than the protected articles, by repealing almost entirely the 
duties laid upon the former, and imjDosing the burden almost entirely on 
the latter. It was thus that instead of relief — instead of an equal dis- 
tribution of the burdens and benefits of the government, on the payment 
of the debt, as had been fondly anticipated — the duties were so arranged 
as to be, in fact, bounties on one side and taxation on the other ; thus 
placing the two great sections of the country in direct conflict in refer- 
ence to its fiscal action, and thereby letting in that flood of political cor- 
ruption which threatens to sweep away our Constitution and our liberty. 

This unequal and unjust arrangement was pronounced, both by the 
administration, through its proper organ, the secretary of the treasury, 
and by the opposition, to be a, permanent adjustment ; and it was thus 
that all hope of relief through the action of the General Government 
terminated, and the crisis so long apprehended at length arrived, at 
which the state was compelled to choose between absolute acquiescence 
in a ruinous system of oppression, or a resort to her reserved powers — 
powers of which she alone was the rightful judge, and which only, in 
this momentous juncture, can save her. She determined on the latter. 

The consent of two thirds of her Legislature was necessary for the 
call of a convention, which was considered the only legitimate organ 
through which the people, in their sovereignty, could speak. After an 
arduous struggle, the State Rights party succeeded : more than two 



1832-33.] SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL. 260 

thirds of both branches of the Legislature favorable to a convention 
were elected ; a convention was called — the ordinance adopted. The 
convention was succeeded by a meeting of the Legislature, when the 
laws to carry the ordinance into execution were enacted : all of which 
have been communicated by the President, have been referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and this bill is the result of their labor. 

Having now corrected some of the prominent misrepresentations as 
to the nature of this controversy, and given a rapid sketch of the move- 
ment of the state in reference to it, I will next proceed to notice some 
objections connected with the ordinance and the proceedings under it. 

The first and most prominent of these is directed against what is call- 
ed the test oath, which an effort has been made to render odious. So 
far from deserving the denunciation which has been levelled against it, 
I view this provision of the ordinance as but the natural result of the 
doctrines entertained by the state, and the position which she occupies. 
The people of the state believe that the Union is a union of states, and 
not of individuals ; that it was formed by the states, and that the citi- 
zens of the several states were bound to it through the acts of their 
several states ; that each state ratified the Constitution for itself, and 
that it was only by such ratification of a state that any obligation was 
imposed upon the citizens : thus believing, it is the opinion of the people 
of Carolina that it belongs to the state which has imposed the obligation 
to declare, in the last resort, the extent of this obligation, as far as her 
citizens are concerned ; and this upon the plain principles winch exist 
in all analogous cases of compact between sovereign bodies. On this 
principle, the people of the state, acting in their sovereign capacity in 
convention, precisely as they adopted their own and the federal Consti- 
tution, have declared by the ordinance, that the acts of Congress which 
imposed duties under the authority to lay imposts, are acts, not for 
revenue, as intended by the Constitution, but for protection, and there- 
fare null and void. The ordinance thus enacted by the people of the 
state themselves, acting as a sovereign community, is as obligatory on 
the citizens of the state as any portion of the Constitution. In prescrib- 
ing, then, the oath to obey the ordinance, no more was done than to 
prescribe an oath to obey the Constitution. It is, in fact, but a particu- 
lar oath of allegiance, and in every respect similar to that which is pre- 
scribed under the Constitution of the United States, to be administered 
to all the officers of the State and Federal Governments ; and is no 
more deserving the harsh and bitter epithets which have been heaped 



270 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1832-33. 

upon it than that, or any similar oath. It ought to be borne in mind, 
that, according to the opinion which prevails in Carolina, the right of 
resistance to the unconstitutional laws of Congress belongs to the state, 
and not to her individual citizens ; and that, though the latter may, in 
a mere question of meum and tuum, resist, through the courts, an uncon- 
stitutional encroachment upon their rights, yet the final stand against 
usurpation rests not with them, but with the state of which they are 
members ; and such act of resistance by a state binds the conscience and 
allegiance of the citizen. But there appears to be a general misappre- 
hension as to the extent to which the state has acted under this part of 
the ordinance. Instead of sweeping every officer by a general pro- 
scription of the minority, as has been represented in debate, as far as 
my knowledge extends, not a single individual has been removed. The 
state has, in fact, acted with the greatest tenderness, all circumstances 
considered, towards citizens who differed from the majority ; and, in 
that spirit, has directed the oath to be administered only in cases of 
some official act directed to be performed in which obedience to the 
ordinance is involved. 

It has been farther objected that the state has acted precipitately. 
What ! precipitately ! after making a strenuous resistance for twelve 
years — by discussion here and in the other house of Congress — by 
essays in all forms — by resolutions, remonstrances, and protests on the 
part of her Legislature — and, finally, by attempting an appeal to the 
judicial power of the United States? I say attempting, for they have 
been prevented from bringing the question fairly before the court, and 
that by an act of that very majority in Congress who now upbraid 
them for not making that appeal ; of that majority who, on a motion of 
one of the members in the other house from South Carolina, refused to 
give to the act of 1828 its true title — that it was a protective, and not a 
revenue act. The state has never, it is true, relied upon that tribunal, 
the Supreme Court, to vindicate its reserved rights ; yet they have 
always considered it as an auxiliary means of defence, of which they 
would gladly have availed themselves to test the constitutionality of 
protection, had they not been deprived of the means of doing so by the 
act of the majority. 

Notwithstanding this long delay of more than ten years, under this 
continued encroachment of the government, we now hear it on all sides, 
by friends and foes, gravely pronounced that the state has acted pre- 
cipitately — that her conduct has been rash ! That such should be the 



1832-33.] SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL. 271 

language of an interested majority, who, by means of this unconstitu- 
tional and oppressive system, are annually extorting millions from the 
South to be bestowed upon other sections, is not at all surprising. 
"Whatever impedes the course of avarice and ambition will ever be de- 
nounced as rash and precipitate ; and had South Carolina delayed her 
resistance fifty instead of twelve years, she would have heard from the 
same quarter the same language ; but it is really surprising that those 
who are suffering in common with herself, and who have complained 
equally loud of their grievances, who have pronounced the very acts 
which she has asserted within her limits to be oppressive, unconstitu- 
tional, and ruinous, after so long a struggle— a struggle longer than 
that which preceded the separation of these states from the mother- 
country — longer than the period of the Trojan war — should now com- 
plain of precipitancy ! No, it is not Carolina which has acted precipi- 
tately ; but her sister states, who have suffered in common with her, 
have acted tardily. Had they acted as she has done, had they 
performed their duty with equal energy and promptness, our situation 
this day would be very different from what we now find it. Delays 
are said to be dangerous ; and never was the maxim more true than in 
the present case, a case of monopoly. It is the very nature of mo- 
nopolies to grow. If we take from one side a large portion of the 
proceeds of its labor and give it to the other, the side from which we 
take must constantly decay, and that to which we give must prosper 
and increase. Such is the action of the protective system. It exacts 
from the South a large portion of the proceeds of its industry, which it 
bestows upon the other sections, in the shape of bounties to manufac- 
tures, and appropriations in a thousand forms ; pensions, improvement 
of rivers and harbors, roads and canals, and in every shape that wit or 
ingenuity can devise. Can we, then, be surprised that the principle of 
monopoly grows, when it is so amply remunerated at the expense of 
those who support it ? And this is the real reason of the fact which 
we witness, that all acts for protection pass with small minorities, but 
soon come to be sustained by great and overwhelming majorities. 
Those who seek the monopoly endeavor to obtain it in the most exclu- 
sive shape ; and they take care, accordingly, to associate only a suffi- 
cient number of interests barely to pass it through the two houses of 
Congress, on the plain principle that the greater the number from 
whom the monopoly takes, and the fewer on whom it bestows, the 
greater is the advantage to the monopolists. Acting in this spirit, we 



272 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1832-33. 

have often seen with what exact precision they count : adding wool to 
woollens, associating lead and iron, feeling their way, until a hare ma- 
jority is obtained, when the bill passes, connecting just as many in- 
terests as are sufficient to ensure its success, ami no more. In a short 
time, however, we have invariably found that this lean becomes a de- 
cided majority, under the certain operation which compels individuals 
to desert the pursuits which the monopoly has rendered unprofitable, that 
they may participate in those pursuits which it has rendered profitable. 
It is against this dangerous and growing disease which South Carolina 
has acted : a disease whose cancerous action would soon have spread 
to every part of the system, if not arrested. 

There is another powerful reason why the action of the state could 
not have been safely delayed. The public debt, as I have already 
stated, for all practical purposes, has already been paid ; and, under 
the existing duties, a large annual surplus of many millions must come 
into the treasury. It is impossible to look at this state of things with- 
out seeing the most mischievous consequences ; and, among others, if 
not speedily corrected, it would interpose powerful and almost insuper- 
able obstacles to throwing off the burden under which the South has- 
been so long laboring. The disposition of the surplus would become a 
subject of violent and corrupt struggle, and. could not fail to rear up 
new and powerful interests in support of the existing system, not only 
in those sections which have been heretofore benefited by it, but even; 
in the South itself. I cannot but trace to the anticipation of this state 
of the treasury the sudden and extraordinary movements which took 
place at the last session in the Virginia Legislature, in which the whole 
South is vitally interested.* It is impossible for any rational man to 
believe that that state could seriously have thought of effecting the 
scheme to which I alluole by her own resources, without powerful aid 
from the General Government. 

It is next objected, that the enforcing acts have legislated the United 
States out of South Carolina. I have already replied to this objection 
on another occasion, and will now but repeat what I then said : that 
they have been legislated out only to the extent that they had no right 
to enter. The Constitution has admitted the jurisdiction of the United 
States within the limits of the several states only so far as the dele- 
gated powers authorize ; beyond that they are intruders, and may 

* Having for their object the emancipation and colonization of slaves. 



1832-33.] SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL. 273 

rightfully be expelled ; and that they have been efficiently expelled by 
the legislation of the state through her civil process, as has been ac- 
knowledged on all sides in the debate, is only a confirmation of the 
truth of the doctrine for which the majority in Carolina have con- 
tended. 

The very point at issue between the two parties there is, whether 
nullification is a peaceable and an efficient remedy against an unconsti- 
tutional act of the General Government, and which may be asserted 
as such through the state tribunals. Both parties agree that the acts 
against which it is directed are unconstitutional and oppressive. The 
controversy is only as to the means by which our citizens may be pro- 
tected against the acknowledged encroachments on their rights. This 
being the point at issue between the parties, and the very object of the 
majority being an efficient protection of the citizens through the state 
tribunals, the measures adopted to enforce the ordinance of course re- 
ceived the most decisive character. We were not children, to act by 
halves. Yet for acting thus efficiently the state is denounced, and this 
bill reported, to overrule, by military force, the civil tribunals and civil 
process of the state ! Sir, I consider this bill, and the arguments 
which have been urged on this floor in its support, as the most trium- 
phant acknowledgment that nullification is peaceful and efficient, and 
so deeply intrenched in the principles of our system, that it cannot be 
assailed but by prostrating the Constitution, and substituting the su- 
premacy of military force in lieu of the supremacy of the laws. In 
fact, the advocates of this bill refute their own argument. They tell 
us that the ordinance is unconstitutional ; that they infract the Consti- 
tution of South Carolina, although, to me, the objection appears absurd, 
as it was adopted by the very authority which adopted the Constitu- 
tion itself. They also tell us that the Supreme Court is the appointed 
arbiter of all controversies between a state and the General Govern- 
ment. Why, then, do they not leave this controversy to that tribunal? 
Why do they not confide to them the abrogation of the ordinance, and 
the laws made in pursuance of it, and the assertion of that supremacy 
which they claim for the laws of Congress ? The state stands pledged 
to resist no process of the court. Why, then, confer on the President 
the extensive and unlimited powers provided in this bill? Why 
authorize him to use military force to arrest the civil process of the 
state ? But one answer can be given : That, in a contest between the 
state and the General Government, if the resistance be limited on both 



274 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1832-33. 

sides to the civil process, the state, by its inherent sovereignty, stand- 
ing upon its reserved powers, will prove too powerful in such a contro- 
versy, and must triumph over the Federal Government, sustained by 
its delegated and limited authority ; and in this answer we have an 
acknowledgment of the truth of those great principles for which the 
state has so firmly and nobly contended. 

Having made these remarks, the great question is now presented, 
Has Congress the right to pass this bill ? which I will next proceed to 
consider. The decision of this question involves the inquiry into the 
provisions of the bill. What are they \ It puts at the disposal of the 
President the army and navy, and the entire militia of the country ; it 
enables him, at his pleasure, to subject every man in the United States, 
not exempt from militia duty, to martial law : to call him from his 
ordinary occupation to the field, and under the penalty of fine and im- 
prisonment, inflicted by a court-martial, to compel him to imbrue his 
hand in his brothers' blood. There is no limitation on the power of the 
sword, and that over the purse is equally without restraint ; for, among 
the extraordinary features of the bill, it contains no appropriation, 
which, under existing circumstances, is tantamount to an unlimited ap- 
propriation. The President may, under its authority, incur any expendi- 
ture, and pledge the national faith to meet it. He may create a new 
national debt, at the very moment of the termination of the former — a 
debt of millions, to be paid out of the proceeds of the labor of that 
section of the country whose dearest constitutional rights this bill pros- 
trates ! Thus exhibiting the extraordinary spectacle, that the very 
section of the country which is urging this measure, and carrying the 
sword of devastation against us, are, at the same time, incurring a new 
debt, to be paid by those whose rights are violated ; while those who 
violate them are to receive the benefits, in the shape of bounties and 
expenditures. 

And for what purpose is the unlimited control of the purse and of 
the sword thus placed at the disposition of the executive ? To make 
war against one of the free and sovereign members of this confedera- 
tion, which the bill proposes to deal with, not as a state, but as a col- 
lection of banditti or outlaws. Thus exhibiting the impious spectacle 
of this government, the creature of the states, making war against the 
power to which it ow T es its existence. 

The bill violates the Constitution, plainly and palpably, in many of 
its provisions, by authorizing the President, at his pleasure, to place the 



1832-33.] SPEECH AGAINST THE" FORCE BILL. 275 

different ports of this Union on an unequal footing, contrary to that pro- 
vision of the Constitution which declares that no preference shall be 
given to one port over another. It also violates the Constitution by- 
authorizing him, at his discretion, to impose cash duties on one port, 
while credit is allowed in others ; by enabling the President to regulate 
commerce, a power vested in Congress alone ; and by drawing within 
the jurisdiction of the United States courts powers never intended to 
be conferred on them. As great as these objections are, they become 
insignificant in the provisions of a bill which, by a single blow — by 
treating the states as a mere lawless mass of individuals — prostrates 
all the barriers of the Constitution. I will pass over the minor con- 
siderations, and proceed directly to the great point This bill proceeds 
on the ground that the entire sovereignty of this country belongs to the 
American people, as forming one great community, and regards the 
states as mere fractions or counties, and not as an integral part of the 
Union: having no more right to resist the encroachments of a govern- 
ment than a county has to resist the authority of a state ; and treat- 
ing such resistance as the lawless acts of so many individuals, without 
possessing sovereignty or political rights. It has been said that the bill 
declares war against South Carolina. No. It decrees a massacre of 
her citizens ! War has something ennobling about it, and, with all its 
horrors, brings into action the highest qualities, intellectual and moral. 
It was, perhaps, in the order of Providence that it should be permitted 
for that very purpose. But this bill declares no war, except, indeed, it 
be that which savages wage — a war, not against the community, but 
the citizens of whom that community is composed. But I regard it as 
worse than savage warfare — as an attempt to take away life under the 
color of law, without the trial by jury, or any other safeguard which 
the Constitution has thrown around the life of the citizen ! It authorizes 
the President, or even his deputies, when they may suppose the law To 
be violated, without the intervention of a court or jury, to kill without 
mercy or discrimination. 

It has been said by the senator from Tennessee (Mr. Grundy) to be 
a measure of peace ! Yes, such peace as the wolf gives to the lamb — 
the kite to the dove. Such peace as Russia gives to Poland, or death 
to its victim ! A peace, by extinguishing the political existence of the 
state, by awing her into an abandonment of the exercise of every power 
which constitutes her a sovereign community. It is to South Carolina 
a question of self-preservation ; and I proclaim it, that should this bill 



276 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1832-33- 

pass, and an attempt be made to enforce it, it will be resisted at every 
hazard — even that of death itself. Death is not the greatest calamity : 
there are others still more terrible to the free and brave, and among 
them may be placed the loss of liberty and honor. There are thousands 
of her brave sons who, if need be, are prepared cheerfully to lay down 
their lives in defence of the state, and the great principles of constitu- 
tional liberty for which she is contending. God forbid that this should 
become necessary ! It never can be, unless this government is resolved 
to bring the question to extremity, when her gallant sons will stand 
prepared to perform the last duty — to die nobly. 

I go on the ground that this Constitution was made by the states - T 
that it is a federal union of the states, in which the several states still 
retain their sovereignty. If these views be correct, I have not charac- 
terized the bill too strongly, which presents the question whether they 
be or not. I will not enter into the discussion of that question now. 
I will rest it, fur the present, on what I have said on the introduction 
of the resolutions now on the table, under a hope that another oppor- 
tunity will be afforded for more ample discussion. I will, for the 
present, confine my remarks to the objections which have been raised 
to the views which I presented when I introduced them. The authority 
of Luther Martin has been adduced by the senator from Delaware, to 
prove that the citizens of a state, acting under the authority of a state, 
are liable to be punished as traitors by this government. As eminent 
as Mr. Martin was as a lawyer, and as high as his authority may be 
considered on a legal point, I cannot accept it in determining the point 
at issue. The attitude which he occupied, if taken into view, would 
lessen, if not destroy, the weight of his authority. He had been vio- 
lently opposed in Convention to the Constitution, and the very letter 
from which the senator has quoted was intended to dissuade Maryland 
from its adoption. With this view, it was to be expected that every 
consideration calculated to effect that object should be urged ; that real 
objections should be exaggerated; and that those having no foundation, 
except mere plausible deductions, should be presented. It is to this 
spirit that I attribute the opinion of Mr. Martin in reference to the point 
under consideration. But if his authority be good on one point, it must 
be admitted to be equally so on another. If his opinion be sufficient 
to prove that a citizen of the state may be punished as a traitor when 
acting under allegiance to the state, it is also sufficient to show that no 
authority was intended to be given in the Constitution for the protection 



1832-33.] SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL. 277 

of manufactures by the General Government, and that the provision in 
the Constitution permitting a state to lay an impost duty, with the 
consent of Congress, was intended to reserve the right of protection to 
the states themselves, and that each state should protect its own in- 
dustry. Assuming his opinion to be of equal authority on both points, 
how embarrassing would be the attitude in which it would place the 
senator from Delaware, and those with whom he is acting — that of 
using the sword and the bayonet to enforce the execution of an un- 
constitutional act of Congress. I must express my surprise that the 
slightest authority in favor of power should be received as the most 
conclusive evidence, while that which is, at least, equally strong in 
favor of right and liberty, is wholly overlooked or rejected. 

Notwithstanding all that has been said, I must say that neither the 
senator from Delaware (Mr. Clayton), nor any other who has spoken on 
the same side, has directly and fairly met the great questions at issue : 
Is this a federal union \ a union of states, as distinct from that of 
individuals ? Is the sovereignty in the several states, or in the American 
people in the aggregate ? The very language which we are compelled 
to use, when speaking of our political institutions, affords proof conclu- 
sive as to its real character. The terms union, federal, united, all imply 
a combination of sovereignties, a confederation of states. They are 
never applied to an association of individuals. Who ever heard of the 
United State of New York, of Massachusetts, or of Virginia? Who 
ever heard the term federal or union applied to the aggregation of 
individuals into one community ? Nor is the other pointless clear — that 
the sovereignty is in the several states, and that our system is a union 
of twenty-four sovereign powers, under a constitutional compact, and 
not of a divided sovereignty between the states severally and the United 
States. In spite of all that has been said, I maintain that sovereignty 
is in its nature indivisible. It is the supreme power in a state, and we 
might just as well speak of half a square, or half of a triangle, as of half 
a sovereignty. It is a gross error to confound the exercise of sovereign 
powers with sovereignty itself, or the delegation of such powers with a 
surrender of them. A sovereign may delegate his powers to be exer- 
cised by as many agents as lie may think proper, under such conditions 
and with such limitations as he may impose; but to surrender any por- 
tion of his sovereignty to another is to annihilate the whole. The 
senator from Delaware (Mr. Clayton) calls this metaphysical reasoning, 
which, he says, he cannot comprehend. If by metaphysics he means 



278 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1832-33. 

that scholastic refinement which makes distinctions without difference, 
no one can hold it in more utter contempt than I do ; but if, on the 
contrary, he means the power of analysis and combination — that power 
which reduces the most complex idea into its elements, which traces 
causes to their first principle, and, by the power of generalization and 
combination, unites the wdiole in one harmonious system — then, so far 
from deserving contempt, it is the highest attribute of the human mind. 
It is the power which raises man above the brute — which distinguishes 
his faculties from mere sagacity, which he holds in common with inferior 
animals. It is this power which has raised the astronomer from being 
a mere gazer at the stars to the high intellectual eminence of a Newton 
or Laplace, and astronomy itself from a mere observation of insulated 
facts into that noble science which displays to our admiration the system 
of the universe. And shall this high power of the mind, which has 
effected such wonders when directed to the laws which control the 
material world, be forever prohibited, under a senseless cry of metaphys- 
ics, from being applied to the high purpose of political science and 
legislation ? I hold them to be subject to laws as fixed ac matter itself, 
and to be as fit a subject for the application of the highest intellectual 
power. Denunciation may, indeed, fall upon the philosophical inquirer 
into these first principles, as it did upon Galileo and Bacon when they 
first unfolded the great discoveries which have immortalized their 
names; but the time will come when truth will prevail in spite of pre- 
judice and denunciation, and when politics and legislation will be 
considered as much a science as astronomy and chemistry. 

In connection with this part of the subject, I understood the senator 
from Virginia (Mr, Hives) to say that sovereignty was divided, and that 
a portion remained with the states severally, and that the residue was 
vested in the Union. By Union, I suppose the senator meant the 
United States. If such be his meaning — if he intended to affirm that 
the sovereignty was in the twenty-four states, in whatever light he may 
view them, our opinions will not disagree ; but, according to my concep- 
tion, the whole sovereignty is in the several states, while the exercise 
of sovereign powers is divided — a part being exercised under compact, 
through this General Government, and the residue through the separate 
state governments. But if the senator from Virginia (Mr. Rives) 
means to assert that the twenty-four states form but one community, 
with a single sovereign power as to the objects of the Union, it will be 
but the revival of the old question, of whether the Union is a union 



1832-33.] SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL. 279 

between states, as distinct communities, or a mere aggregate of the 
American people, as a mass of individuals ; and in this light his opinions 
would lead directly to consolidation. 

But to return to the bill. It is said that the bill ought to pass, 
because the law must be enforced. The law must be enforced. The 
imperial edict must be executed. It is under such sophistry, couched in 
general terms, without looking to the limitations which must ever exist 
in the practical exercise of power, that the most cruel and despotic acts 
ever have been covered. It was such sophistry as this that cast Daniel 
into the lion's den, and the three Innocents into the fiery furnace. Under 
the same sophistry the bloody edicts of Nero and Caligula were 
executed. The law must be enforced. Yes, the act imposing the " tea- 
tax must be executed." This was the very argument which impelled 
Lord North and his administration in that mad career which forever 
separated us from the British crown. Under a similar sophistry, " that 
religion must be protected," how many massacres have been perpetrated ? 
and how many martyrs have been tied to the stake \ What ! acting on 
this vague abstraction, are you prepared to enforce a law without con- 
sidering whether it be just or unjust, constitutional or unconstitutional? 
Will you collect money when it is acknowledged that it is not wanted ? 
He who earns the money, who digs it from the earth with the sweat of 
his brow, has a just title to it against the universe. No one has a right 
to touch it without his consent except his government, and it only to the 
extent of its legitimate wants ; to take more is robbery, and you propose 
by this bill to enforce robbery by murder. Yes : to this result you 
must come, by this miserable sophistry, this vague abstraction of 
enforcing the law, without a regard to the fact whether the law 
be just or unjust, constitutional or unconstitutional. 

In the same spirit, we are told that the Union must be preserved, 
without regard to the means. And how is it proposed to preserve the 
Union ? By force ! Does any man in his senses believe that this 
beautiful structure — this harmonious aggregate of states, produced by 
the joint consent of all— can be preserved by force ? Its very introduc- 
tion will be certain destruction of this Federal Union. No, no. You 
cannot keep the states united in their constitutional and federal bonds 
by force. Force may, indeed, hold the parts together, but such union 
would be the bond between master and slave : a union of exaction on 
one side, and of unqualified obedience on the other. That obedience 
which, we are told by the senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Wilkins), is 



280 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1832-33. 

the Union ! Yes, exaction on the side of the master ; for this very bill 
is intended to collect what can be no longer called taxes — the voluntary 
contribution of a free people — but tribute — tribute to be collected under 
the mouths of the cannon ! Your custom-house is already transferred 
to a garrison, and that garrison with its batteries turned, not against the 
enemy of your country, but on subjects (I will not say citizens), on 
whom you propose to levy contributions. Has reason fled from our 
borders ? Have we ceased to reflect ? It is madness to suppose that 
the Union can be preserved by force. I tell you plainly, that the bill, 
should it pass, cannot be enforced. It will prove only a blot upon your 
statute-book, a reproach to the year, and a disgrace to the American 
Senate. I repeat that it will not be executed : it will rouse the dormant 
spirit of the people, and open their e}-es to the approach of despotism. 
The country has sunk into avarice and political corruption, from which 
nothing can arouse it but some measure, on the part of the government, 
of folly and madness, such as that now under consideration. 

Disguise it as you may, the controversy is one between power and 
liberty ; and I will tell the gentlemen who are opposed to me, that, as 
strong as may be the love of power on their side, the love of liberty is 
still stronger on ours. History furnishes many instances of similar 
struggles where the love of liberty has prevailed against power under 
every disadvantage, and among them few more striking than that of our 
own Revolution ; where, as strong as was the parent country, and feeble 
as were the colonies, yet, under the impulse of liberty, and the blessing 
of God, they, gloriously triumphed in the contest. There are, indeed, 
many and striking analogies between that and the present controversy : 
they both originated substantially in the same cause, with this differ- 
ence, that, in the present case, the power of taxation is converted into 
that of regulating industry ; in that, the power of regulating industry, 
by the regulation of commerce, was attempted to be converted into the 
power of taxation. Were I to trace the analogy farther, we should 
find that the perversion of the taxing power, in one case, has given pre- 
cisely the same control to the Northern section over the industry of the 
Southern section of the Union, which the power to regulate commerce 
gave to Great Britain over the industry of the colonies ; and that the 
very articles in which the colonies were permitted to have a free trade, 
and those in which the mother-country had a monopoly, are almost 
identically the same as those in which the Southern States are per- 
mitted to have a free trade by the act of 1832, and in which the JSTor- 



1832-33.] SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL. 



281 



thern States have, by the same act, secured a monopoly : the only dif- 
ference is in the means. In the former, the colonies were permitted to 
have a free trade with all countries south of Cape Finisterre, a cape in 
the northern part of Spain ; while north of that the trade of the colonies 
was prohibited, except through the mother-country, by means of her 
commercial regulations. If we compare the products of the country 
north and south of Cape Finisterre, we shall find them almost identical 
with the list of the protected and unprotected articles contained in the 
act of last year. "Nor does the analogy terminate here. The very argu- 
ments resorted to at the commencement of the American Revolution, 
and the measures adopted, and the motives assigned to bring on that 
contest (to enforce the law), are almost identically the same. 

But to return from this digression to the consideration of the bill. 
"Whatever difference of opinion may exist upon other points, there is 
one on which I should suppose there can be none : that this bill rests on 
principles which, if carried out, will ride over state sovereignties, and 
that it will be idle for any of its advocates hereafter to talk of state 
rights. The senator from Virginia (Mr. Rives) says that he is the ad- 
vocate of state rights ; but he must permit me to tell him that, although 
he may differ in premises from the other gentlemen with whom he acts 
on this occasion, yet in supporting this bill he obliterates every vestige 
of distinction between him and them, saving only that, professing the 
principles of '98, his example will be more pernicious than that of the 
most open and bitter opponents of the rights of the states. I will also 
add, what I am compelled to say, that I must consider him (Mr. Rives) 
as less consistent than our old opponents, whose conclusions were fairly 
drawn from their premises, while his premises ought to have led him to 
opposite conclusions. The gentleman has told us that the new-fangled 
doctrines, as he chooses to call them, have brought state rights into dis- 
repute. I must tell him, in reply, that what he calls new-fangled are 
but the doctrines of '98 ; and that it is he (Mr. Rives), and others with 
him, who, professing these doctrines, have degraded them by explaining 
away their meaning and efficacy. He (Mr. R.) has disclaimed, in behalf 
of Virginia, the authorship of nullification. I will not dispute that point. 
If Virginia chooses to throw away one of her brightest ornaments, she 
must not hereafter complain that it has become the property of another. 
But while I have, as a representative of Carolina, no right to complain 
of the disavowal of the senator from Virginia, I must believe that he 
(Mr. R.) has done his native state great injustice by declaring on thia 



282 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1832-33. 

floor that, when she gravely resolved, in '98, that, " in cases of deliberate 
and dangerous infractions of the Constitution, the states, as parties to 
the compact, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose to 
arrest the progress of the evil, and to maintain within their respective 
limits the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them," she 
meant no more than to ordain the right to protest and to remonstrate. 
To suppose that, in putting forth so solemn a declaration, which she 
afterward sustained by so able and elaborate an argument, she meant 
no more than to assert what no one had ever denied, would be to sup- 
pose that the state had been guilty of the most egregious trifling that 
ever was exhibited on so solemn an occasion. 

In reviewing the ground over which I have passed, it will be apparent 
that the question in controversy involves that most deeply important 
of all political questions, whether ours is a federal or a consolidated 
government : a question, on the decision of which depend, as I solemnly 
believe, the liberty of the people, their happiness, and the place which 
we are destined to hold in the moral and intellectual scale of nations. 
Never was there a controversy in which more important consequences 
were involved : not excepting that between Persia and Greece, decided 
by the battles of Marathon, Platea, and Salamis ; which gave ascendency 
to the genius of Europe over that of Asia ; and which, in its conse- 
quences, has continued to affect the destiny of so large a portion of the 
world even to this day. There are often close analogies between events 
apparently very remote, which are strikingly illustrated in this case. 
In the great contest between Greece and Persia, between European and 
Asiatic policy and civilization, the very question between the federal 
and consolidated form of government was involved. The Asiatic govern- 
ments, from the remotest time, with some exceptions on the eastern 
shore of the Mediterranean, have been based on the principle of consoli- 
dation, which considers the whole community as but a unit, and consoli- 
dates its powers in a central point. The opposite principle has pre- 
vailed in Europe — Greece, throughout all her states, was based on a 
federal system. All were united in one common, but loose bond, and 
the governments of the several states partook, for the most part, of a 
complex organization, which distributed political power among different 
members of the community. The same principles prevailed in ancient 
Italy ; and, if we turn to the Teutonic race, our great ancestors — the 
race which occupies the first place in power, civilization, and science, 
and which possesses the largest and the fairest part of Europe — we 



1832-33.] speech against the force bill. 



2m 



shall find that their governments were based on the federal organiza- 
tion, as has been clearly illustrated by a recent and able writer on the 
British Constitution (Mr. Palgrave), from whose writings I introduce 
the following extract : 

" In this manner the first establishment of the Teutonic States was 
effected. They were assemblages of septs, clans, and tribes ; they were 
confederated hosts and armies, led on by princes, magistrates, and 
chieftains; each of whom was originally independent, and each of 
whom lost a portion of his pristine independence in proportion as he 
and his compeers became united under the supremacy of a sovereign, 
who was superinduced upon the state, first as a military commander, 
and afterward as a king. Yet, notwithstanding this political connection, 
each member of the state continued to retain a considerable portion of 
the rights of sovereignty. Every ancient Teutonic monarchy must be 
considered as a federation : it is not a unit, of which the smaller bodies 
politic therein contained are the fractions, but they are the integers, 
and the state is the multiple which results from them. Dukedoms and 
counties, burghs and baronies, towns and townships, and shires, form 
the kingdom ; all, in a certain degree, strangers to each other, and sep- 
arate in jurisdiction, though all obedient to the supreme executive au- 
thority. This general description, though not always strictly applicable 
in terms, is always so substantially and in effect ; and hence it becomes 
necessary to discard the language which has been very generally em- 
ployed in treating on the English Constitution. It has been supposed 
that the kingdom was reduced into a regular and gradual subordination 
of government, and that the various legal districts of which it is com- 
posed arose from the divisions and subdivisions of the country. But 
this hypothesis, which tends greatly to perplex our history, cannot be 
supported by fact ; and instead of viewing the Constitution as a whole, 
and then proceeding to its parts, we must examine it synthetically, and 
assume that the supreme authorities of the state were created by the 
concentration of the powers originally belonging to the members and 
corporations of which it is composed." [Here Mr. C. gave way for a 
motion to adjourn.] 

On the next day Mr. Calhoun said, I have omitted at the proper 
place, in the course of my observations yesterday, two or three points, 
to which I will now advert, before I resume the discussion where I left 
off. I have stated that the ordinance and acts of South Carolina were 
directed, not against the revenue, but against the system of protection. 



284 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1832-33. 

But it may be asked, If such was her object, how happens it that she 
has declared the whole system void — revenue as well as protection, 
without discrimination ? It is this question which I propose to answer. 
Her justification will be found in the necessity of the case ; and if there 
be any blame, it cannot attach to her. The two are so blended, through- 
out the whole, as to make the entire revenue system subordinate to the 
protective, so as to constitute a complete system of protection, in which 
it is impossible to discriminate the two elements of which it is com- 
posed. South Carolina, at least, could not make the discrimination, and 
she was reduced to the alternative of acquiescing in a system which 
she believed to be unconstitutional, and which she felt to be oppressive 
*and ruinous, or to consider the whole as one, equally contaminated 
through all its parts, by the unconstitutionality of the protective por- 
tion, and, as such, to be resisted by the act of the state. I maintain 
that the state has a right to regard it in the latter character, and that, 
if a loss of revenue follow, the fault is not hers, but of this government, 
which has improperly blended together, in a manner not to be separated 
by the state, two systems wholly dissimilar. If the sincerity of the state 
be doubted ; if it be supposed that her action is against revenue as well 
as protection, let the two be separated : let so much of the duties as 
are intended for revenue be put in one bill, and the residue intended 
for protection be put in another, and I pledge myself that the ordinance 
and the acts of the state will cease as to the former, and be directed 
exclusively against the latter. 

I also stated, in the course of my remarks yesterday, and I trust I 
have conclusively shown, that the act of 1816, with the exception of a 
single item, to which I have alluded, was, in reality, a revenue measure, 
and that Carolina and the other states, in supporting it, have not incur- 
red the slightest responsibility in relation to the system of protection 
which has since grown up, and which now so deeply distracts the 
country. Sir, I am willing, as one of the representatives of Carolina, 
and I believe I speak the sentiment of the state, to take that act as the 
basis of a permanent adjustment of the tariff, simply reducing the duties, 
in an average proportion, on all the items to the revenue point. I make 
that offer now to the advocates of the protective system ; but I must, 
in candor, inform them that such an adjustment would distribute the 
revenue between the protected and unprotected articles more favorable 
to the state, and to the South, and less so to the manufacturing interest, 
than an average uniform ad valorem, and, accordingly, more so than 






1832-33.] SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL. 285 

that now proposed by Carolina through her convention. After such an 
offer, no man who values his candor will dare accuse the state, or those 
who have represented her here, with inconsistency in reference to the 
point under consideration. 

I omitted, also, on yesterday, to notice a remark of the senator from 
Virginia (Mr. Rives), that the only difficulty in adjusting the tariff grew 
out of the ordinance and the acts of South Carolina. I must attribute 
an assertion so inconsistent with the facts to an ignorance of the occur- 
rences of the last few years in reference to this subject, occasioned by 
the absence of the gentleman from the United States, to which he 
himself has alluded in his remarks. If the senator will take pains to 
inform himself, he will find that this protective system advanced with 
a continued and rapid step, in spite of petitions, remonstrances, and 
protests, of not only Carolina, but also of Virginia and of all the 
Southern States, until 1828, when Carolina, for the first time, changed 
the character of her resistance, by holding up her reserved rights as 
the shield of her defence against farther encroachment. This attitude 
alone, unaided by a single state, arrested the farther progress of the 
system, so that the question from that period to this, on the part of the 
manufacturers, has been, not how to acquire more, but to retain that 
which they have acquired. I will inform the gentleman that, if this 
attitude had not been taken on the part of the state, the question would 
not now be how duties ought to be repealed, but a question, as to the 
protected articles, between prohibition on one side and the duties estab- 
lished by the act of 1828 on the other. But a single remark will be 
sufficient in reply to what I must consider the invidious remark of the 
senator from Virginia (Mr. Rives). The act of 1832, which has not yet 
gone into operation, and which was passed but a few months since, was 
declared by the supporters of the system to be a permanent adjustment, 
and the bill proposed by the Treasury Department, not essentially differ- 
ent from the act itself, was in like manner declared to be intended by 
the administration as a permanent arrangement. What has occurred 
since, except this ordinance, and these abused acts of the calumniated 
state, to produce this mighty revolution in reference to this odious sys- 
tem ? Unless the senator from Virginia can assign some other cause, 
he is bound, upon every principle of fairness, to retract this unjust 
aspersion upon the acts of South Carolina. 

The senator from Delaware (Mr. Clayton), as well as others, has 
relied with great emphasis on the fact that we are citizens of the 



286 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1832-33. 

United States. I do not object to the expression, nor shall I detract 
from the proud and elevated feelings with which it is associated ; but I 
trust that I may be permitted to raise the inquiry, In what manner are 
we citizens of the United States ? without weakening the patriotic 
feeling with which, I trust, it will ever be uttered. If by citizen of the 
United States he means a citizen at large, one whose citizenship extends 
to the entire geographical limits of the country, without having a local 
citizenship in some state or territory, a sort of citizen of the world, all 
I have to say is, that such a citizen would be a perfect nondescript ; 
that not a single individual of this description can be found in the entire 
mass of our population. Notwithstanding all the pomp and display 
of eloquence on the occasion, every citizen is a citizen of some state or 
territory, and, as such, under an express provision of the Constitution, 
is entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several 
states ; and it is in this, and in no other sense, that we are citizens of 
the United States. The senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dallas), indeed, 
relies upon that provision in the Constitution which gives Congress the 
power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and the operation 
of the rule actually established under this authority, to prove that 
naturalized citizens are citizens at large, without being citizens of any 
of the states. I do not deem it necessary to examine the law of Con- 
gress upon this subject, or to reply to the arguments of the senator, 
though I cannot doubt that he (Mr. D.) has taken an entirely erroneous 
view of the subject. It is sufficient that the power of Congress extends 
simply to the establishment of a uniform rule by which foreigners may 
be naturalized in the several states or territories, without infringing in 
any other respect, in reference to naturalization, the rights of the states 
as they existed before the adoption of the Constitution. 

Having supplied the omissions of yesterday, I now resume the sub- 
ject at the point where my remarks then terminated. The Senate 
will remember that I stated, at their close, that the great question at 
issue is, whether ours is a federal or a consolidated system of govern- 
ment ; a system in which the parts, to use the emphatic language of 
Mr. Palgrave, are the integers, and the whole the multiple, or in which 
the whole is a unit and the parts the fractions ; that I stated, that on 
the decision of this question, I believe, depended not only the liberty 
and prosperity of this country, but the place which we are destined to 
hold in the intellectual and moral scale of nations. I stated, also, in 
my remarks on this point, that there is a striking analogy between this 



1832-33.] SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL. 287 

and the great struggle between Persia aud Greece, which was decided 
by the battles of Marathon, Platea, and Salamis, and which immortal- 
ized the names of Miltiades and Themistocles. I illustrated this an- 
alogy by showing that centralism or consolidation, with the exception 
of a few nations along the eastern border of the Mediterranean, has 
been the pervading principle in the Asiatic governments, while the 
federal system, or, what is the same in principle, that system which or- 
ganizes a community in reference to its parts, has prevailed in Europe. 
Among the few exceptions in the Asiatic nations, the government of 
the twelve tribes of Israel, in its early period, is the most striking. 
Their government, at first, was a mere confederation without any cen- 
tral power, till a military chieftain, with the title of king, was placed 
at its head, without, however, merging the original organization of the 
twelve distinct tribes. This was the commencement of that central 
action among that peculiar people which, in three generations, ter- 
minated in a permanent division of their tribes. It is impossible even 
for a careless reader to peruse the history of that event without being 
forcibly struck with the analogy in the causes which led to their separa- 
tion, and those which now threaten us with a similar calamity. With 
the establishment of the central power in the king commenced a sys- 
tem of taxation, which, under King Solomon, was greatly increased to 
defray the expense of rearing the temple, of enlarging and embellish- 
ing Jerusalem, the seat of the central government, and the other pro- 
fuse expenditures of his magnificent reign. Increased taxation was 
followed by its natural consequences — discontent and complaint ; which 
before his death began to excite resistance. On the succession of his 
son, Rehoboam, the ten tribes, headed by Jeroboam, demanded a re- 
duction of the taxes ; the temple being finished, and the embellishment 
of Jerusalem completed, and the money which had been raised for that 
purpose being no longer required, or, in other words, the debt being 
paid, they demanded a reduction of the duties — a repeal of the tariff. 
The demand was taken under consideration, and after consulting the 
old men, the counsellors of '98, who advised a reduction, he then 
took the opinion of the younger politicians, who had since grown up, 
and knew not the doctrines of their fathers ; he hearkened unto their 
counsel, and refused to make the reduction, and the secession of the 
ten tribes under Jeroboam followed. The tribes of Judah and Ben- 
jamin, which had received the disbursements, alone remained to the 
house of David. 



288 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1832-33. 

But to return to the point immediately under consideration. I know 
that it is not only the opinion of a large mnjority of our country, but 
it may be said to be the opinion of the age, that the very beau ideal 
of a perfect government is the government of a majority, acting through 
a representative body, without check or limitation in its power ; yet, if 
we may test this theory by experience and reason, we shall find that, 
so far from being perfect, the necessary tendency of all governments, 
based upon the will of an absolute majority, without constitutional 
check or limitation of power, is to faction, corruption, anarchy, and 
despotism ; and this, whether the will of the majority be expressed 
directly through an assembly of the people themselves, or by their 
representatives. I know that, in venturing this assertion, I utter that 
which is unpopular both within and without these walls ; but where 
truth and liberty are concerned, such considerations should not be re- 
garded. I will place the decision of this point on the fact that no gov- 
ernment of the kind, among the many attempts which have been made, 
has ever endured for a single generation, but, on the contrary, has in- 
variably experienced the fate which I have assigned to it. Let a 
single instance be pointed out, and I will surrender my opinion. But, 
if we had not the aid of experience to direct our judgment, reason 
itself would be a certain guide. The view which considers the com- 
munity as a unit, and all its parts as having a similar interest, is radi- 
cally erroneous. However small the community may be, and however 
homogeneous its interests, the moment that government is put into 
operation, as soon as it begins to collect taxes and to make appropria- 
tions, the different portions of the community must, of necessity, bear 
different and opposing relations in reference to the action of the gov- 
ernment. There must inevitably spring up two interests — a direction 
and a stockholder interest — an interest profiting by the action of the 
government, and interested in increasing its powers and action ; and 
another, at whose expense the political machine is kept in motion. I 
know how difficult it is to communicate distinct ideas on such a sub- 
ject, through the medium of general propositions, without particular 
illustration; and in order that I maybe distinctly understood, though 
at the hazard of being tedious I will illustrate the important principle 
which I have ventured to advance by examples. 

Let us, then, suppose a small community of five persons, separated 
from the rest of the world ; and, to make the example strong, let us 
suppose them all to be engaged in the same pursuit, and to be of equal 



1832-33.] SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL. 289 

wealth. Let us further suppose that they determine to govern the 
community by the will of a majority ; and, to make the case as strong 
as possible, let us suppose that the majority, in order to meet the ex- 
penses of the government, lay an equal tax, say of $100, on each indi- 
vidual of this little community. Their treasury would contain five 
hundred dollars. Three are a majority; and they, by supposition, have 
contributed three hundred as their portion, and the other two (the 
minority), two hundred. The three have the right to make the appro- 
priations as they may think proper. The question is, How would the 
principle of the absolute and unchecked majority operate, under these 
circumstances, in this little community ? If the three be governed by a 
sense of justice — if they should appropriate the money to the objects 
for which it was raised, the common and equal benefit of the five, then 
the object of the association would be fairly and honestly effected, and 
each would have a common interest in the government. But, should 
the majority pursue an opposite course — should they appropriate the 
money in a manner to benefit their own particular interest, without re- 
gard to the interest of the two (and that they will so act, unless there 
be some efficient check, he who best knows human nature will least 
doubt), who does not see that the three and the two would have 
directly opposite interests in reference to the action of the government ? 
The three who contribute to the common treasury but three hundred 
dollars, could, in fact, by appropriating the five hundred to their own 
use, convert the action of the government into the means of making 
money, and, of consequence, would have a direct interest in increasing 
the taxes. They put in three hundred and take out five : that is, they 
take back to themselves all that they had put in, and in addition, that 
which was put in by their associates ; or, in other words, taking taxa- 
tion and appropriation together, they have gained, and their associates 
have lost, two hundred dollars by the fiscal action of the government. 
Opposite interests, in reference to the action of the government, are 
thus created between them : the one having an interest in favor, and 
the other against the taxes ; the one to increase, and the other to de- 
crease the taxes; the one to retain the taxes when the money is no 
longer wanted, and the other to repeal them when the objects for which 
they were levied have been executed. 

Let us now suppose this community of five to be raised to twenty-four 
individuals, to be governed, in like manner, by the will of a majority : 
it is obvious that the same principle would divide them into two 

13 



290 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1832-33. 

interests— into a majority and a minority, thirteen against eleven, or in 
some other proportion; and that all the consequences which I have 
shown to be applicable to the small community of five would be equally 
applicable to the greater, the cause not depending upon the number, but 
resulting necessarily from the action of the government itself. Let us 
now suppose that, instead of governing themselves directly in an 
assembly of the whole, without the intervention of agents, they should 
adopt the representative principle, and that, instead of being governed 
by a majority of themselves, they should be governed by a majority of 
their representatives. It is obvious that the operation of the system 
would not be affected by the change : the representatives being responsi- 
ble to those who choose them, would conform to the will of their con- 
stituents, and would act as they would do were they present and acting 
for themselves ; and the same conflict of interest, which we have shown 
would exist in one case, would equally exist in the other. In either 
case, the inevitable result would be a system of hostile legislation on the 
part of the majority, or the stronger interest, against the minority, or 
the weaker interest : the object of which, on the part of the former, 
would be to exact as much as possible from the latter, which would 
necessarily be resisted by all the means in their power. Warfare, by 
legislation, would thus be commenced between the parties, with the 
6ame object, and not less hostile than that which is carried on between 
distinct and rival nations— the only distinction would be in the instru- 
ments and the mode. Enactments, in the one case, would supply what 
could only be effected by arms in the other ; and the inevitable opera- 
tion would be to engender the most hostile feelings between the parties, 
which would merge every feeling of patriotism— that feeling which 
embraces the whole, and substitute in its place the most violent party 
attachment ; and, instead of having one common centre of attachment, 
around which the affections of the community might rally, there would, 
in fact, be two — the interests of the majority, to which those who con- 
stitute that majority would be more attached than they would be to the 
whole, and that of the minority, to which they, in like manner, would 
also be more attached than to the interests of the whole. Faction 
would thus take the place of patriotism ; and, with the loss of patriot- 
ism, corruption must necessarily follow, and in its train, anarchy, and, 
finally, despotism, or the establishment of absolute power in a single 
individual, as a means of arresting the conflict of hostile interests : on 
the principle that it is better to submit to the will of a single individual, 



1832-33.] SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL. 291 

who, by being made lord and master of the whole community, would 
have an equal interest in the protection of all the parts. 

Let us next suppose that, in order to avert the calamitous train of 
consequences, this little community should adopt a written constitution, 
with limitations restricting the will of the majority, in order to protect 
the minority against the oppression which I have shown would neces- 
sarily result without such restrictions. It is obvious that the case 
would not be in the slightest degree varied if the majority be left in 
possession of the right of judging exclusively of the extent of its powers, 
without any right on the part of the minority to enforce the restrictions 
imposed by the Constitution on the will of the majority. The point is 
almost too clear for illustration. Nothing can be more certain than that, 
when a constitution grants power, and imposes limitations on the exer- 
cise of that power, whatever interests may obtain possession of the 
government, will be in favor of extending the power at the expense of 
the limitation ; and that, unless those in whose behalf the limitations 
were imposed have, in some form or mode, the right of enforcing them, 
the power will ultimately supersede the limitation, and the government 
must operate precisely in the same manner as if the will of the majority 
governed without constitution or limitation of power. 

I have thus presented all possible modes in which a government 
founded upon the will of an absolute majority will be modified, and 
have demonstrated that, in all its forms, whether in a majority of the 
people, as in a mere Democracy, or in a majority of their representatives, 
without a constitution or with a constitution, to be interpreted as the 
will of the majority, the result will be the same : two hostile interests 
will inevitably be created by the action of the government, to be 
followed by hostile legislation, and that by faction, corruption, anarchy, 
and despotism. 

The great and solemn question here presents itself, Is there any 
remedy for these evils ? on the decision of which depends the question, 
whether the people can govern themselves, which has been so often 
asked with so much skepticism and doubt. There is a remedy, and but 
one, the effects of which, whatever may be the form, is to organize 
society in reference to this conflict of interests, which springs out of the 
action of government ; and which can only be done by giving to each 
part the right of self- protection ; which, in a word, instead of consider- 
ing the community of twenty-four a single community, having a common 
interest, and to be governed by the single will of an entire majority, 



292 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1832-33. 

shall, upon all questions tending to bring the parts into conflict, the 
thirteen against the eleven, take the will, not of the twenty-four as a 
unit, but that of the thirteen and that of the eleven separately, the 
majority of each governing the parts, and where they concur, governing 
the whole, and where they disagree, arresting the action of the govern- 
ment. This I will call the concurring, as distinct from the absolute 
majority. It would not be, as was generally supposed, a minority 
governing a majority. In either way the number would be the same, 
whether taken as the absolute or as the concurring majority. Thus, the 
majority of the thirteen is seven, and of the eleven six ; and the two 
together make thirteen, which is the majority of twenty-four. But, 
though the number is the same, the mode of counting is essentially 
different : the one representing the strongest interest, and the other, the 
entire interests of the community. The first mistake is, in supposing 
that the government of the absolute majority is the government of this 
people — that beau ideal of a perfect government which has been so 
enthusiastically entertained in every age by the generous and patriotic, 
where civilization and liberty have made the smallest progress. There 
can be no greater error : the government of the people is the govern- 
ment of the whole community — of the twenty-four — the self-government 
of all the parts — too perfect to be reduced to practice in the present, or 
any past stage of human society. The government of the absolute 
majority, instead of the government of the people, is but the govern- 
ment of the strongest interests, and, when not efficiently checked, is the 
most tyrannical and oppressive that can be devised. Between this ideal 
perfection on one side and despotism on the other, none other can be 
devised but that which considers society in reference to its parts, as 
differently affected by the action of the government, and which takes the 
sense of each part separately, and thereby the sense of the whole, in the 
manner already illustrated. 

These principles, as I have already stated, are not affected by the 
number of wliich the community may be composed, and are just as ap- 
plicable to one of thirteen millions, the number which composes ours, as 
of the small community of twenty-four, which I have supposed for the 
purpose of illustration ; and are not less applicable to the twenty-four 
states united in one community, than to the case of the twenty-four indi- 
viduals. There is, indeed, a distinction between a large and a small 
community, not affecting the principle, but the violence of the action. 
In the former, the similarity of the interests of all the parts will limit 



1832-33.] SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL. 293 

the oppression from the hostile action of the parts, in a great degree, to 
the fiscal action of the government merely ; but in the large community, 
spreading over a country of great extent, and having a great diversity 
of interests, with different kinds of labor, capital, and production, the 
conflict and oppression will extend, not only to a monopoly of the ap- 
propriations on the part of the stronger interests, but will end in unequal 
taxes, and a general conflict between the entire interests of conflicting 
sections, which, if not arrested by the most powerful checks, will ter- 
minate in the most oppressive tyranny that can be conceived, or in the 
destruction of the community itself. 

If we turn our attention from these supposed cases, and direct it to 
our government and its actual operation, we shall find a practical con- 
firmation of the truth of what has been stated, not only of the oppres- 
sive operation of the system of an absolute majority, but also a striking 
and beautiful illustration, in the formation of our system, of the princi- 
ple of the concurring majority, as distinct from the absolute, which I 
have asserted to be the only means of efficiently checking the abuse of 
power, and, of course, the only solid foundation of constitutional liberty. 
That our government, for many years, has been gradually verging to 
consolidation ; that the Constitution has gradually become a dead letter ; 
and that all restrictions upon the power of government have been vir- 
tually removed, so as practically to convert the General Government 
into a government of an absolute majority, without check or limitation, 
cannot be denied by any one who has impartially observed its opera- 
tion. 

It is not necessary to trace the commencement and gradual progress 
of the causes which have produced this change in our system ; it is 
sufficient to state that the change has taken place within the last few 
years. What has been the result ? Precisely that which might have 
been anticipated : the growth of faction, corruption, anarchy, and, if not 
desjwtism itself, its near approach, as witnessed in the provisions of this 
bill. And from what have these consequences sprung ? We have been 
involved in no war ! We have been at peace with all the world. We 
have been visited with no national calamity. Our people have been 
advancing in general intelligence, and, I will add, as great and alarm- 
ing as has been the advance of political corruption among the merce- 
nary corps who look to government for support, the morals and virtue 
of the community at large have been advancing in improvement. 
What, I will again repeat, is the cause ? No other can be assigned but 



294 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1832-33. 

a departure from the fundamental principles of the Constitution, which 
has converted the government into the "will of an absolute and irrespon- 
sible majority, and which, by the laws that must inevitably govern in 
all such majorities, has placed in conflict the great interests of the coun- 
try : by a system of hostile legislation, by an oppressive and unequal 
imposition of taxes, by unequal and profuse appropriations, and by ren- 
dering the entire labor and capital of the weaker interest subordinate 
to the stronger. 

This is the cause, and these the fruits, which have converted the gov- 
ernment into a mere instrument of taking money from one portion of 
the community to be given to another, and which has rallied around it 
a great, a powerful, and mercenary corps of office-holders, office-seekers, 
and expectants, destitute of principle and patriotism, and who have no 
standard of morals or politics but the will of the executive — the -will of 
him who has the distribution of the loaves and the fishes. I hold it im- 
possible for any one to look at the theoretical illustration of the princi- 
ple of the absolute majority in the cases which I have supposed, and 
not be struck with the practical illustration in the actual operation of 
our government. Under every circumstance, the absolute majority 
will ever have its American system (I mean nothing offensive to any 
senator) ; but the real meaning of the American system is, that system 
of plunder which the strongest interest has ever waged, and will ever 
wage, against the weaker, where the latter is not armed with some 
efficient and constitutional check to arrest its action. Nothing but such 
check on the part of the weaker interest can arrest it ; mere constitu- 
tional limitations are wholly insufficient. Whatever interest obtains 
possession of the government will, from the nature of things, be in favor 
of the powers, and against the limitations imposed by the Constitution, 
and will resort to every device that can be imagined to remove those 
restraints. On the contrary, the opposite interest, that which I have 
designated as the stock-holding interest, the tax-payers, those on -whom 
the system operates, will resist the abuse of powers, and contend for 
the limitations. And it is on this point, then, that the contest between 
the delegated and the reserved powers will be waged ; but in this con- 
test, as the interests in possession of the government are organized and 
armed by all its powers and patronage, the opposite interest, if not in 
like manner organized and possessed of a power to protect themselves 
under the provisions of the Constitution, will be as inevitably crushed 
as would be a band of unorganized militia when opposed by a veteran 



1832-33.] SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL. 295 

and trained corps of regulars. Let it never be forgotten that power 
can only be opposed by power, organization by organization ; and on 
this theory stands our beautiful federal system of government, No free 
system was ever farther removed from the principle that the absolute 
majority, without check or limitation, ought to govern. To understand 
what our government is, we must look to the Constitution, which is the 
basis of the system. I do not intend to enter into any minute examina- 
tion of the origin and the source of its powers ; it is sufficient for my 
purpose to state, what I do fearlessly, that it derived its power from the 
people of the separate states, each ratifying by itself, each binding itself 
by its own separate majority, through its separate convention, the con- 
currence of the majorities of the several states forming the Constitution, 
thus taking the sense of the whole by that of the several parts, repre- 
senting the various interests of the entire community. It was this con- 
curring and perfect majority which formed the Constitution, and not 
that majority which would consider the American people as a single 
community, and which, instead of representing fairly and fully the in- 
terests of the whole, would but represent, as has been stated, the inter- 
est of the stronger section. No candid man can dispute that I have 
given a correct description of the constitution-making power ; that 
power which created and organized the government, which delegated to 
it, as a common agent, certain powers, in trust for the common good of 
all the states, and which imposed strict limitation and checks against 
abuses and usurpations. In administering the delegated powers, the 
Constitution provides, very properly, in order to give promptitude and 
efficiency, that the government shall be organized upon the principle of 
the absolute majority, or, rather, of two absolute majorities combined: 
a majority of the states considered as bodies politic, which prevails in 
this body ; and a majority of the people of the states, estimated in fed- 
eral numbers, in the other house of Congress. A combination of the 
two prevails in the choice of the President, and, of course, in the ap- 
pointment of judges, they being nominated by the President and con- 
firmed by the Senate. It is thus that the concurring and the absolute 
majorities are combined in one complex system : the one in forming the 
Constitution, and the other in making and executing the laws ; thus 
beautifully blending the moderation, justice, and equity of the former, 
and more perfect majority, with the promptness and energy of the 
latter, but less perfect. 

To maintain the ascendency of the Constitution over the law-making 



296 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1832-33. 

majority is the great and essential point, on which the success of the 
system must depend : unless that ascendency can be preserved, the 
necessary consequence must be, that the laws will supersede the Con- 
stitution, and, finally, the will of the executive, by the influence of his 
patronage, will supersede the laws, indications of which are already 
perceptible. This ascendency can only be preserved through the action 
of the states as organized bodies, having their own separate govern- 
ments, and possessed of the right, under the structure of our system, 
of judging of the extent of then* separate powers, and of interposing 
then authority to arrest the enactments of the General Government 
within their respective limits. I will not enter at this time into the 
discussion of this important point, as it has been ably and fully pre- 
sented by the senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bibb), and others who pre- 
ceded him in this debate on the same side, whose arguments not only 
remain unanswered, but are unanswerable. It is only by this power 
of interposition that the reserved rights of the states can be peacefully 
and efficiently protected against the encroachments of the General 
Government, that the limitations imposed upon its authority will be 
enforced, and its movements confined to the orbit allotted to it by the 
Constitution. 

It has, indeed, been said in debate, that this can be effected by the 
organization of the General Government itself, particularly by the action 
of this body, which represents the states, and that the states themselves 
must look to the General Government for the preservation of many of 
the most important of their reserved rights. I do not underrate the 
value to be attached to the organic arrangement of the General Gov- 
ernment, and the wise distribution of its powers between the several 
departments, and, in particular, the structure and the important func- 
tions of this body ; but to suppose that the Senate, or any department 
of this government, was intended to be the only guardian of the re- 
served rights, is a great and fundamental mistake. The government, 
through all its departments, represents the delegated, and not the 
reserved powers; and it is a violation of the fundamental principle of 
free institutions to suppose that any but the responsible representative 
of any interest can be its guardian. The distribution of the powers 
of the General Government, and its organization, were arranged to pre- 
vent the abuse of power in fulfiDing the important trusts confided to it, 
and not, as preposterously supposed, to protect the reserved powers,, 
which are confided wholly to the guardianship of the several states. 



1832-33.] SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL. 297 

Against the view of our system which I have presented, and the 
right of the state to interpose, it is objected that it would lead to anar- 
chy and dissolution. I consider the objection as without the slightest 
foundation, and that, so far from tending to weakness or disunion, it is 
the source of the highest power and of the strongest cement. Nor is 
its tendency in this respect difficult of explanation. The government 
of an absolute majorit}', unchecked by efficient constitutional restraint, 
though apparently strong, is, in reality, an exceedingly feeble govern- 
ment. That tendency to conflict between the parts, which I have 
shown to be inevitable in such governments, wastes the powers of the 
state in the hostile action of contending factions, which leaves very little 
more power than the excess of the strength of the majority over the 
minority. But a government based upon the principle of the concur- 
ring majority, where each great interest possesses within itself the 
means of self-protection, which ultimately requires the mutual consent 
of all the parts, necessarily causes that unanimity in council, and ardent 
attachment of all the parts to the whole, which give an irresistible 
energy to a government so constituted. I might appeal to history for 
the truth of these remarks, of which the Roman furnishes the most 
familiar and striking. It is a well-known fact, that, from the expulsion 
of the Tarquins to the time of the establishment of the tribunitian 
power, the government fell into a state of the greatest disorder and 
distraction, and, I may add, corruption. How did this happen ? The 
explanation will throw important light on the subject under considera- 
tion. The community was divided into two parts — the Patricians and 
the Plebeians : with the power of the state principally in the hands of 
the former, without adequate check to protect the rights of the latter. 
The result was as might be expected. The patricians converted the 
powers of the government into the means of making money, to enrich 
themselves and their dependants. They, in a w T ord, had their American 
system, growing out of the peculiar character of the government and 
condition of the country. This requires explanation. At that period, 
according to the laws of nations, when one nation conquered another, 
the lands of the vanquished belonged to the victors ; and, according to 
the Roman law, the lands thus acquired were divided into two parts, 
one allotted to the poorer class of the people, and the other assigned 
to the use of the treasury, of which the patricians had the distribution 
and administration. The patricians abused their power by withholding 
from the plebeians that which ought to have been allotted to them, and 



298 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1832-33. 

by converting to their own use that which ought to have gone to the 
treasury. In a word, they took to themselves the entire spoils of vic- 
tory, and they had thus the most powerful motive to keep the state 
perpetually involved in war, to the utter impoverishment and oppres- 
sion of the plebeians. After resisting the abuse of power by all peace- 
able means, and the oppression becoming intolerable, the plebeians, at 
last, withdrew from the city — they, in a word, seceded ; and to induce 
them to reunite, the patricians conceded to the plebeians, as the means 
of protecting their separate interests, the very power which I contend 
is necessary to protect the rights of the states, but which is now repre- 
sented as necessarily leading to disunion. They granted to them the 
right of choosing three tribunes from among themselves, whose persons 
should be sacred, and who should have the right of interposing their 
veto, not only against the passage of laws, but even against their exe- 
cution : a power which those who take a shallow insight into human 
nature would pronounce inconsistent with the strength and unity of the 
state, if not utterly impracticable ; yet, so far from that being the effect, 
from that day the genius of Rome became ascendant, and victory fol- 
lowed her steps till she had established an almost universal dominion. 
How can a result so contrary to all anticipation be explained? The 
explanation appears to me to be simple. No measure or movement 
could be adopted without the concurring assent of both the patricians 
and plebeians, and each thus became dependent on the other ; and of 
consequence, the desire and objects of neither could be effected without 
the concurrence of the other. To obtain this concurrence, each was 
compelled to consult the good-will of the other, and to elevate to office, 
not simply those who might have the confidence of the order to which 
he belonged, but also that of the other. The result was, that men 
possessing those qualities which would naturally command confidence — 
moderation, wisdom, justice, and patriotism — were elevated to office; 
and these, by the weight of their authority and the prudence of their 
counsel, together with that spirit of unanimity necessarily resulting 
from the concurring assent of the two orders, furnishes the real ex- 
planation of the power of the Roman State, and of that extraordinary 
wisdom, moderation, and firmness which in so remarkable a degree 
characterized her public men. I might illustrate the truth of the posi- 
tion which I have laid down by a reference to the history of all free 
states, ancient and modern, distinguished for their power and patriotism, 
and conclusively show, not only that there was not one which had not 



1832-33.] SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL. 



299 



some contrivance, under some form, by which the concurring assent of 
the different portions of the community was made necessary in the ac- 
tion of government, but also that the virtue, patriotism, and strength 
of the state were in direct proportion to the perfection of the means of 
securing such assent. In estimating the operation of this principle in 
our system, which depends, as I have stated, on the right of interposition 
on the part of the state, we must not omit to take into consideration 
the amending power, by which new powers may be granted, or any 
derangement of the system be corrected, by the concurring assent of 
three fourths of the states, and thus, in the same degree, strengthening 
the power of repairing any derangement occasioned by the eccentric 
action of a state. In fact, the power of interposition, fairly understood, 
may be considered in the light of an appeal against the usurpations of 
the General Government, the joint agent of all the states, to the states 
themselves, to be decided under the amending power, affirmatively in 
favor of the government, by the voice of three fourths of the states, as 
the highest power known under the system. 1 know the difficulty in 
our country, of establishing the truth of the principle for which I con- 
tend, though resting upon the clearest reason, and tested by the uni- 
versal experience of free nations. I know that the governments of 
the several states will be cited as an argument against the conclusion 
to which I have arrived, and which, for the most part, are constructed 
on the principle of the absolute majority ; but, in my opinion, a satis- 
factory answer can be given : that the objects of expenditure which fall 
within the sphere of a state government are few and inconsiderable, so 
that, be their action ever so irregular, it can occasion but little derange- 
ment. If, instead of being members of this great confederacy, they 
formed distinct communities, and were compelled to raise armies, and 
incur other expenses necessary to their defence, the laws which I have 
laid down as necessarily controlling the action of the state where the 
will of an absolute and unchecked majority prevailed, would speedily 
disclose themselves in faction, anarchy, and corruption. Even as the 
case is, the operation of the causes to which I have referred is percep- 
tible in some of the larger and more populous members of the Union, 
whose governments have a powerful central action, and which already 
show a strong tendency to that moneyed action which is the invariable 
forerunner of corruption and convulsions. 

But to return to the General Government, we have now sufficient ex- 
perience to ascertain that the tendency to conflict in its action is be- 



300 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1832-33. 

tween Southern and other sections. The latter having a decided ma- 
jority, must habitually be possessed of the powers of the government, 
both in this and in the other house ; and, being governed by that in- 
stinctive love of power so natural to the human breast, they must be- 
come the advocates of the power of government, and in the same 
degree opposed to the limitations ; while the other and weaker section 
is as necessarily thrown on the side of the limitations. One section is 
the natural guardian of the delegated powers, and the other of the re- 
served ; and the struggle on the side of the former will be to enlarge 
the powers, while that on the opposite side will be to restrain them 
"within their constitutional limits. The contest will, in fact, be a con- 
test between power and liberty, and such I consider the present — a 
contest in which the weaker section, with its peculiar labor, produc- 
tions, and institutions, has at stake all that can be dear to freemen, 
Should we be able to maintain in their full vi^or our reserved rights, 
liberty and prosperity will be our portion ; but if we yield, and per- 
mit the stronger interest to concentrate within itself all the powers of 
the government, then will our fate be more wretched than that of the 
aborigines whom we have expelled. In this great struggle between 
the delegated and reserved powers, so far from repining that my lot, 
and that of those whom I represent, is cast on the side of the latter, 
I rejoice that such is the fact ; for, though we participate in but few of 
the advantages of the government, we are compensated, and more 
than compensated, in not being so much exposed to its corruption. Nor 
do I repine that the duty, so difficult to be discharged, as the defence 
of the reserved powers, against apparently such fearful odds, has been 
assigned to us. To discharge successfully this high duty requires the 
highest qualities, moral and intellectual ; and should we perform it 
with a zeal and ability in proportion to its magnitude, instead of being 
mere planters, our section will become distinguished for its patriots 
and statesmen. But, on the other hand, if we prove unworthy of this 
high destiny — if we yield to the steady encroachment of power, the 
severest calamity and most debasing corruption will overspread the 
land. Every Southern man, true to the interests of his section, and 
faithful to the duties which Providence has allotted him, will be for- 
ever excluded from the honors and emoluments of this government, 
which will be reserved for those only who have qualified themselves, 
by political prostitution, for admission into the Magdalen Asylum. 

Mr. Calhoun spoke on the 15th of February, and 



1833 ] ARGUMENT OF MR. WEBSTER. 301 

three days afterward the bill was ordered to be en- 
grossed for a third reading, by a vote of thirty-two to 
eight. Those who voted in the negative were Mr. 
Bibb of Kentucky, Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Miller of 
South Carolina, Mr. King and Mr. Moore of Alabama, 
Mr. Mangum of North Carolina, Mr. Troup of Georgia, 
and Mr. Tyler of Virginia. Mr. Clay, Mr. Benton, and 
several other senators, absented themselves, and did 
not vote on the question, The bill was pressed to a 
final vote on the 20th instant. All the senators op- 
posed to it except Mr. Tyler having left the Senate 
chamber, it was passed by a vote of thirty-two to one 
(Mr. Tyler.) 

In his speech on the Force Bill, Mr. Calhoun pur- 
posely avoided the discussion of the principles involved 
in his resolutions, except in general terms, because he 
wished to deprive Mr. Webster of the advantage of 
attacking his positions when he would be precluded 
from a reply. Mr. Webster followed Mr. Calhoun in 
the debate on the Force Bill ; and instead of confining 
himself to the merits of the question actually before 
the Senate, he went into an elaborate examination of 
the principles on which the government was formed, 
and taking the extreme federal ground in support and 
defence of consolidation, attacked with much vehemence 
and ability the positions laid down by Mr. Calhoun in 
his resolutions. The latter had anticipated this, and 
after the passage of the Force Bill, the Senate, at his 
request, assigned a day when he should be heard in 
defence of his resolutions. 

The question at issue was of the highest importance. 
It was a contest between extremes — ultra Federalism 



302 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1833. 

and Consolidation on the one hand, and ultra State 
Rights on the other. Mr. Webster saw where the real 
point lay, and had the frankness to concede it. He 
could not but admit that if the Constitution was a com- 
pact between the states, as the whole Republican party- 
then, as now, contended, nullification, state interposi- 
tion, and secession, followed as a matter of course.* 
Mr. Webster, therefore, maintained that the Constitu- 
tion was not only a compact between the states, but 
that after its ratification it became the fundamental 
law, supreme in its authority to the extent of the 
delegated powers, binding the states and the whole 
American people in the aggregate, and thus forming 
one indivisible nation. 

" Whether the Constitution be a compact between 
states in their sovereign capacities," he said, " is a 
question which must be mainly argued from what is 
contained in the instrument itself. We all agree that it 
is an instrument which has been in some way clothed 
with power. We all admit that it speaks with author- 
ity. The first question then is — What does it say of 
itself? What does it purport to be ? Does it style itself 
a league, confederacy, or compact between sovereign 
states ? It is to be remembered, that the Constitution 
began to speak only after its adoption. Until it was 
ratified by nine states, it was but a proposal, the mere 
draft of an instrument. It was like a deed drawn but 
not executed. The Convention had framed it ; sent it 

* Mr. Grundy admitted in liis resolutions, that nullification was the 
rightful remedy in the last resort ; and he was one of the leaders, and 
on this occasion was regarded as the organ, of the administration or 
Jackson party. 



1833.1 SPEECH ON HIS RESOLUTIONS. 303 

to Congress then sitting under the Confederation : Con- 
gress had transmitted it to the State Legislatures ; and 
by the last, it was laid before the Conventions of the 
people in the several states. All this while it was in- 
operative paper. It had received no stamp of authority : 
it spoke no language. But when ratified by the people 
in their respective Conventions, then it had a voice and 
spoke authentically. Every word in it had then re- 
ceived the sanction of the popular will, and was to be 
received as the expression of that will. What the 
Constitution says of itself, therefore, is as conclusive as 
what it says on any other point. Does it call itself a 
* compact ?' Certainly not. It uses the word compact 
but once, and that is, when it declares that the states 
shall enter into no compact. Does it call itself a 
' league,' a ' confederacy,' a ' subsisting treaty between 
the states ?' Certainly not. There is not a particle of 
such language in all its pages. But it declares itself a 
Constitution. What is a Constitution? Certainly not 
a league or confederacy, but a fundamental law. That 
fundamental regulation which determines the manner 
in which the public authority is to be executed, is what 
forms the Constitution of a State. Those primary 
rules which concern the body itself, and the very being 
of the political society, the form of government and the 
manner in which power is to be exercised — all, in a 
word, which form together the Constitution of a state — 
these are fundamental laws. This is the language of 
the public writers. But do we need to be informed in 
this country what a constitution is ? Is it not an idea 
perfectly familiar, definite and well settled? We are 
at no loss to understand what is meant by the Constitu- 



304 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1833. 

tion of one of the states — and the Constitution of the 
United States speaks of itself as being an instrument 
of the same nature. It says, this Constitution shall be 
the law of the land, anything in State Constitutions to 
the contrary, notwithstanding. And speaks of itself, 
too, in plain contradistinction from a confederation : for 
it says, that all debts contracted, and all engagements 
entered into by the United States, shall be as valid 
under this Constitution as under the Confederation* It 
does not say, as valid under this compact, or this league, 
or this confederation, as under the former confederation, 
but as valid under this Constitution." 

Mr. Calhoun replied to Mr. Webster on the 26th of 
February, in a most masterly effort made in the presence 
of a large and attentive audience. All felt the influence 
of the mighty mind whose energies were now taxed to 
the utmost, and hundreds who could not or would not 
be convinced by his reasoning, listened with admira- 
tion and delight to the torrent of argument that rolled 
in an incessant flow from his lips. He maintained that 
the Constitution was strictly a compact between sover- 
eign bodies, and that each state as a party could declare 
the nature and extent of her obligations, in the same 

* [But the Constitution does not say that such debts or engagements 
are of any greater validity under the Constitution than under the Arti- 
cles of Confederation, which they certainly would be, if, as contended 
by Mr. "Webster, the Constitution is not a compact ; because in that 
case they would be binding and obligatory, not only upon the states, 
but also upon the American people in the aggregate. Is not the in- 
ference irresistible, then, that the Constitution was designed to be a sub- 
stitute merely for the Confederation, — enlarging the powers of the 
federal authority and constituting different representatives of that au- 
thority, though not in fact changing its nature or character ?] 



1833.] his position. 305 

manner as in the analogous case of a treaty or alliance 
between two powers or governments. The Constitu- 
tion was formed by a federal convention of the states, 
and ratified by the states as states, through the inter- 
position of Conventions, for, obviously, the state legisla- 
tures had no power to bind their constituents on such 
a question : it was not submitted to the people in the 
aggregate, but each state voted upon it separately, in 
its sovereign capacity. 

Mr. Calhoun sustained his position that the Constitu- 
tion was a compact by quoting the language of Mr. 
Webster himself, who, in his reply to Mr. Hayne on 
the 26th of January, 1830, had referred to the federal 
constitution as a " compact," and as " the constitutional 
compact." He also cited the ratification resolutions 
of the Massachusetts convention in 1788, which charac- 
terized the Constitution as " an explicit and solemn 
compact," and to the similar terms employed by the 
legislature of that state in their reply to the Virginia 
resolutions of 1798. These resolutions had declared 
the Constitution to be a compact between the states, 
which Massachusetts expressly recognized in her an- 
swer, while it was not denied by Delaware, New York, 
Connecticut, New Hampshire, or Vermont, who also 
replied to the resolutions, and, by their silence, acqui- 
esced in this construction. 

The great principle for which Mr. Calhoun contended, 
was embraced in the first resolution, which, being ad- 
mitted, the other resolutions were the irresistible infer- 
ences or conclusions. The first resolution, said Mr. 
Calhoun, " contains three propositions, First, that the 
Constitution is a compact ; second, that it was formed 



306 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1833. 

by the states, constituting distinct communities ; and, 
lastly, that it is a subsisting and binding compact 
between the states. How do these three propositions 
now stand ? The first, I trust, has been satisfactorily 
established ; the second, the senator has admitted, faint- 
ly, indeed, but still he has admitted it to be true. This 
admission is something. It is so much gained by 
discussion. Three years ago even this was a contested 
point. But I cannot say that I thank him for the 
admission : we owe it to the force of truth. The fact 
that these states were declared to be free and independ- 
ent states at the time of their independence ; that they 
were acknowledged to be so by Great Britain in the 
treaty which terminated the war of the Revolution, and 
secured their independence ; that they were recognized 
in the same character in the old articles of the Con- 
federation ; and, finally, that the present Constitution 
was formed by a convention of the several states, 
afterward submitted to them for their ratification, and 
was ratified by them separately, each for itself, and 
each, by its own act, binding its citizens, formed a body 
of facts too clear to be denied and too strong to be 
resisted. 

" It now remains to consider the third and last 
proposition contained in the resolution — that it is a 
binding and a subsisting compact between the states. 
The senator was not explicit on this point. I under- 
stood him, however, as asserting that, though formed by 
the states, the Constitution was not binding between 
the states as distinct communities, but between the 
American people in the aggregate, who, in consequence 
of the adoption of the Constitution, according to the 



1833.] THE CONSTITUTION A BINDING COMPACT. 307 

opinion of the senator, became one people, at least to the 
extent of the delegated powers. This would, indeed, 
be a great change. All acknowledge, that previous to 
the adoption of the Constitution, the states constituted 
distinct and independent communities, in full possession 
of their sovereignty ; and, surely, if the adoption of the 
Constitution was intended to effect the great and im- 
portant change in their condition which the theory of 
the senator supposes, some evidence of it ought to be 
found in the instrument itself. It professes to be a 
careful and full enumeration of all the powers which 
the states delegated, and of every modification of then- 
political condition. The senator said that he looked 
to the Constitution in order to ascertain its real charac- 
ter ; and, surely, he ought to look to the same instru- 
ment in order to ascertain what changes were, in fact, 
made in the political condition of the states and the 
country. But with the exception of ' We, the people 
of the United States' in the preamble, he has not 
pointed out a single indication in the Constitution of the 
great change which he conceives has been effected in 
this respect. 

" Now, sir, I intend to prove that the only argument 
on which the senator relies on this point must utterly 
fail him. I do not intend to go into a critical examina- 
tion of the expression of the preamble to which I have 
referred. I do not deem it necessary ; but were it, it 
might easily be shown that it is at least as applicable to 
my view of the Constitution as to that of the senator, 
and that the whole of his argument on this point rests 
on the ambiguity of the term thirteen United States ; 
which may mean certain territorial limits, comprehend- 



308 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1833. 

ing within them the whole of the states and territories 
of the Union. In this sense the people of the United 
States may mean all the people living within these 
limits, without reference to the states or territories in 
which they may reside, or of which they may be 
citizens, and it is in this sense only that the expression 
gives the least countenance to the argument of the 
senator. But it may also mean the states united, which 
inversion alone, without farther explanation, removes 
the ambiguity to which I have referred. The expres- 
sion, in this sense, obviously means no more than to 
speak of the people of the several states in their united 
and confederated capacity ; and, if it were requisite, it 
might be shown that it is only in this sense that the 
expression is used in the Constitution. But it is not 
necessary. A single argument will forever settle this 
point. Whatever may be the true meaning of this 
expression, it is not applicable to the condition of the 
states as they exist under the Constitution, but as it was 
under the old Confederation, before its adoption. The 
Constitution had not yet been adopted, and the states, 
in ordaining it, could only speak of themselves in the 
condition in which they then existed, and not in that in 
which they would exist under the Constitution, so that, 
if the argument of the senator proves anything, it 
proves, not, as he supposes, that the Constitution forms 
the American people into an aggregate mass of individ- 
uals, but that such was their political condition before 
its adoption, under the old Confederation, directly con- 
trary to his argument in the previous part of this dis- 
cussion. 

11 But I intend not to leave this important point, the 



1833.] RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. 309 

last refuge of those who advocate consolidation, even 
on this conclusive argument. I have shown that the 
Constitution affords not the least evidence of the mighty 
change of the political condition of the states and the 
country, which the senator supposed it effected ; and I 
intend now by the most decisive proof, drawn from the 
constitutional instrument itself, to show that no such 
change was intended, and that the people of the states 
are united under it as states and not as individuals. 
On this point there is a very important part of the Con- 
stitution entirely and strangely overlooked by the sena- 
tor in this debate, as it is expressed in the first resolu- 
tion, which furnishes the conclusive evidence, not only 
that the Constitution is a compact, but a subsisting com- 
pact, binding between the states. I allude to the 
seventh article, which provides that ' the ratification of 
the convention of nine states shall be sufficient for the 
establishment of this Constitution between the states so 
ratifying the same.' Yes, between the states : these little 
words mean a volume — compacts, not laws, bind be- 
tween the states ; and it here binds, not between indi- 
viduals, but between the states, — the states ratifying, 
— implying, as strong as language can make it, that 
the Constitution is what I have asserted it to be — a 
compact, ratified. by the states, and a subsisting com- 
pact, binding the states ratifying it. 

" But, sir, I will not leave this point, all-important in 
establishing the true theory of our government, on this 
argument alone, — demonstrative and conclusive as I 
hold it to be. Another not much less powerful, but of 
a different character, may be drawn from the tenth 
amended article, which provides that 'the powers not 



310 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1833. 

delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor 
prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states 
respectively or to the people.' The article of ratifica- 
tion which I have just cited informs us that the Consti- 
tution, which delegates powers, was ratified by the states, 
and is binding between them. This informs us to whom 
the powers are delegated, a most important fact in de- 
termining the point immediately at issue between the 
senator and myself. According to his views, the Con- 
stitution created a union between individuals, if the 
solecism may be allowed, and that it formed, at least to 
the extent of the powers delegated, one people, and not 
a Federal Union of the States, as I contend ; or, to ex- 
press the same idea differently, that the delegation of 
powers was to the American people in the aggregate 
(for it is only by such delegation that they could be 
made into one people), and not to the United States, 
directly contrary to the article just cited, which declares 
that the powers are delegated to the United States. 
And here it is worthv of notice, that the senator can- 
not shelter himself under the ambiguous phrase ' to the 
people of the United States,' under which he would cer- 
tainly have taken refuge, had the Constitution so ex- 
pressed it ; but, fortunately for the cause of truth and 
for the great principles of constitutional liberty for 
which I am contending, 'people' is omitted ; thus making 
the delegation of power clear and unequivocal to the 
United States, as distinct political communities, and 
conclusively proving that all the powers delegated 
are reciprocally delegated by the states to each other, 
as distinct political communities. 

" So much for the delegated powers. Now, as all 



1833.] THE CONFEDERATION. 311 

admit, and as it is expressly provided for in the Consti- 
tution, the reserved powers are reserved to the states 
respectively, or to the people, none will pretend that as 
far as they are concerned, we are one people, though 
the argument to prove it. however absurd, would be far 
more plausible than that which goes to show that we 
are one people to the extent of the delegated powers. 
This reservation ' to the people' might, in the hands of 
subtle and trained logicians, be a peg to hang a doubt 
upon ; and had the expression ' to the people' been con- 
nected, as fortunately it is not, with the delegated in- 
stead of the reserved powers, we should not have heard 
'of this in the present discussion. * 

" If we compare our present system with the old Con- 
federation, which all acknowledge to have been federal 
in its character, we shall find that it possesses all the 
attributes which belong to that form of government as 
fully and completely as that did. In fact, in this par- 
ticular, there is but a single difference, and that not 
essential, as regards the point immediately under con- 
sideration, though very important in other respects. 
The confederation was the act of the state governments, 
and formed a union of governments. The present 
Constitution is the act of the states themselves, or, 
which is the same thing, of the people of the several 
states, and forms a union of them as sovereign com- 
munities. The states, previous to the adoption of the 
Constitution, were as separate and distinct political 
bodies as the governments which represent them, and 
there is nothing in the nature of things to prevent them 
from uniting under a compact, in a federal union, with- 
out being blended in one mass, any more than uniting 



312 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1833. 

the governments themselves, in like manner, without 
merging them in a single government. To illustrate 
what I have stated by reference to ordinary transac- 
tions, the confederation was a contract between agents 
— the present Constitution between the principals them- 
selves ; or, to take a more analogous case, one is a 
league made by ambassadors ; the other, a league made 
by sovereigns — the latter no more tending to unite the 
parties into a single sovereignty than the former. The 
only difference is in the solemnity of the act and the 
force of the obligation." 

Rarely has such intellectual championship been wit- 
nessed in the halls of Congress as on this memorable 
occasion. It was a contest between giants. Never 
before had the great powers of Mr. Calhoun been made 
so clearly manifest ; and the superiority of his logical 
powers was admitted bv many who had not hitherto 
been classed among his admirers. Mr. Webster was 
specious and technical ; Mr. Calhoun's argument pro- 
ceeded link by link till he had formed a chain of ada- 
mant. The blows of the former were truly formidable, 
but they were spent in great part upon the air, while 
every stroke from his antagonist drove the nail home. 
Mr. Webster argued like a lawyer — Mr. Calhoun like a 
statesman. The North American Review, hitherto 
always known as the firm and able advocate of federal 
doctrines, admitted that Mr. Calhoun had successfully 
maintained the point that the Constitution was a com- 
pact between the states, and it placed him where the 
general voice of the nation when divested of party pre- 
judice placed him, in the front rank of the elite of 
American statesmen. Mr. Webster himself tacitly con- 



1833.] ANECDOTE OF RANDOLPH. 313 

ceded that he was beaten. He never attempted to reply 
to the reply of Mr. Calhoun, but in moody silence and 
with frowning brows regarded the demolition of the 
argument he had taken so much pains to construct. 

The eccentric John Randolph, then in feeble health, 
happened to be present during this debate. He sat near 
Mr. Calhoun when the latter was making his reply, but 
a hat standing on the seat before him, prevented him 
from seeing Mr. Webster. " Take away that hat," he 
exclaimed ; " I want to see Webster die, muscle by 
muscle." 

The Force Bill passed the House of Representatives 
on the 28th of February, and thus became a law ; but 
in the meantime everything had remained quiet in 
South Carolina. The 1st of February w r as the day ap- 
pointed for the nullification ordinance to take effect, 
but about that time the leading State Rights men held 
a meeting at Charleston, and adopted resolutions agree- 
ing that no attempt should be made to execute the ordi- 
nance till Congress adjourned and the State Conven- 
tion reassembled.* In this manner a collision between 
the state and national authorities was avoided. The 
forts in the harbor of Charleston were strongly garri- 
soned under the orders of the President, but the officer 
charged with the command in this quarter was cautious, 
forbearing, and discreet. f Owing to his moderation 
and prudence, and the display of the same qualities by 
the prominent nullifiers and unionists, not a drop of 
blood was shed. 

Meanwhile, in compliance with the clearly expressed 
wish of the country, notwithstanding a majority of the 

* Niles' Register, vol. xliii. p. 381, f General Scott. 



314 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1833. 

American people may have at that time disapproved of 
the stand taken by South Carolina, different measures 
for the reduction of the duties were brought before Con- 
gress. The project presented by the administration 
was thought by the friends of protection to contemplate 
too sudden a reduction. They became alarmed, and 
Mr. Clay as their organ prepared the well-known Com- 
promise Act, under the advice and with the approba- 
tion of Mr. Calhoun. The latter did not desire to see 
the manufacturers ruined, nor hastilv to undo the bad 
legislation which had given rise to so many complaints. 
The Compromise Act was announced by its author and 
advocate, Mr. Clay, to be designed for a permanent 
tariff system which should quiet the present agitation, 
and prevent a recurrence of similar evils in the future. 
The bill surrendered the protective principle and estab- 
lished the ad valorem — two favorite points with Mr. 
Calhoun. It also provided for a general reduction of 
the duties to the revenue standard. Mr. Calhoun was 
satisfied with this, as were all parties in Congress ex- 
cept the ultra friends of protection. The bill passed 
both Houses, therefore, by large majorities, and receiv- 
ed the signature of the President on the 2d day of 
March, 1833. 

Congress adjourned on the 3d instant, and Mr. Cal- 
houn hastened his return home. Travelling nio-ht and 
day by the most rapid public conveyances, he succeed- 
ed in reaching Columbia in time to meet the Conven- 
tion before they had taken any additional steps. Some 
of the more fiery and ardent members were disposed to 
complain of the Compromise Act as being only a half- 
way, temporizing measure ; but when his explanations 



1833.] TERMINATION OF THE CONTROVERSY. 315 

were made, all felt satisfied, and the Convention cor- 
dially approved of his course. The nullification ordi- 
nance was repealed, and the two parties in tile state 
abandoned their organizations, and mutually agreed to 
forget ail their past differences — a pledge which, to their 
honor be it said, was faithfully observed. 

Thus terminated this important controversy, which 
for a time threatened the integrity of the Union. It is, 
perhaps, too soon to form a correct judgment in regard 
to the events of this conflict between State Rights and 
Consolidation. Nullification, it has been said, was " a 
little hurricane while it lasted;'' but it cooled the air, 
and "left a beneficial effect on the atmosphere." Its 
influence was decidedly healthful. The nullifiers cer- 
tainly achieved a triumph, — for they procured a recog- 
nition, not immediate but ultimate, of the correctness 
of their doctrines ; and the result of this great contest, 
more than aught else, laid the foundation of that appro- 
bation of the State Rights creed which is now so gen- 
eral a sentiment, and paved the way for the eventual 
success of the principles of Free Trade. 



CHAPTER X. 

Removal of the Deposits — Opposition of Mi*. Calhoun to the Jackson 
Administration — Course in Regard to the Bank — Executive Patron- 
age — Reelected to the Senate — Abolition Excitement — Speech on 
the Reception of Abolition Petitions — Admission of Michigan — Sep- 
aration of the Government from the Banks — Speech of Mr. Calhoun 
— Reply to Mr. Clay. 

One of the most powerful reasons — and, perhaps, 
irrespective of personal feelings, the controlling one — 
that influenced Mr. Calhoun in taking a position ad- 
verse to the administration of General Jackson, was 
the favor at first shown toward the protective policy. 
But this important subject having been disposed of for 
the present by the passage of the Compromise Bill, it 
became a serious question among politicians, as to what 
would be the future course of Mr. Calhoun. The 
friends of the administration party claimed to represent, 
and so far as great and leading principles were con- 
cerned, they did in fact represent, the old Republican 
party of which Jeflerson.and Madison were the found- 
ers. The opposition in turn insisted that they were 
the only true disciples of the school to which those 
illustrious statesmen belonged, and they had several 
years previous assumed the name of " National Repub- 
licans." Had Mr. Calhoun consulted his early predi- 
lections, he would undoubtedly have waived all the 
considerations personal to himself, on the overthrow of 



I 

1833-34.] REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 317 

the protective policy, and again united with his Repub- 
lican friends, not, it may be, as a partisan of the ad- 
ministration, but as a supporter of the principles of their 
common creed. 

But just at this time a new and exciting question was 
thrown into the sea of politics, now subsiding from its 
troubled state to one of calm and repose, and again its 
waters were agitated with the fury of the tempest. In 
1832, the bill to recharter the. United States Bank was 
vetoed by President Jackson, and at the ensuing election 
he was again chosen the chief magistrate of the nation. 
This decision of the American people in his favor, as 
it was construed by himself and his friends, embolden- 
ed him to uree forward measures which he had prob- 
ably long had in contemplation ; and this he was the 
better able to do, in consequence of the adjustment of 
the tariff question. 

That General Jackson was a firm patriot — sincerely 
attached to the liberties and the institutions of his 
country, none can deny. Mr. Calhoun did not question 
this, but under the influence of the personal animosity 
which had been kindled, and the strong bias which in- 
duced him to look with disfavor on everything emanat- 
ing from the administration, he thought he saw an at- 
tempt on the part of the president to strengthen the 
executive power and patronage, and to wield the influ- 
ence which these gave him for corrupt purposes. Much 
as the views of the former may have been colored by 
prejudice, he was sincere in his convictions, and he was 
more confirmed in them by the removal of the deposits 
from the Bank of the United States in the fall of 1833, 
by order of President Jackson. 



318 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1833-34. 

When Congress assembled in December of that year, 
this question was the engrossing topic of discussion, 
and throughout the whole session it was the main sub- 
ject of debate. The friends of the administration did 
not deny that it was a high-handed act, but they justi- 
fied it on the score of necessity. They charged that 
the Bank had leagued with stock interests and politi- 
cians to control the elections ; that it had spent large 
sums of money to that end and to secure its recharter : 
and that it was no longer a safe depository of the pub- 
lic moneys. These charges were not then sustained 
by such proof as admitted of no question or dispute, 
though there was much to uphold them, and they were 
afterward proven to be true on the final failure of the 
Bank, as rechartered by the state of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. Calhoun, therefore, was not satisfied of the truth 
of the charges : he took them as not proven ; and be- 
lieving the removal of the deposits to be inconsistent 
with the provisions of law requiring or directing the 
public funds to be collected, distributed, and kept, 
through and by the Bank as the fiscal agent of govern- 
ment, he looked upon this proceeding as a gross act of 
executive usurpation. This seemed to him to be more 
obvious because the president had recommended the 
removal at the previous session of Congress, but that 
body had refused by a strong vote to approve of his 
recommendation. It is true, however, that a new 
House of Representatives had since been chosen who 
were favorable, as the sequel showed, to the removal 
of the deposits. 

In December, 1833, Mr. Clay introduced resolutions 
into the Senate censuring the president in the severest 



1833-34.] opposition to the administration. 319 

terms, and declaring that he had assumed authority 
and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, 
but in derogation of both. This resolution, together 
with another condemning the Secretary of the Treasury 
for making the removal, received the support of Mr. 
Calhoun. Yet he was no friend to the Bank, and in 
an able speech delivered on the 13th of January, 1834, 
he declared that the real question was not, as was in- 
sisted bv the friends of the administration, " Bank or 
no Bank." " Taking the deposit question in the broad- 
est sense," he said ; " suppose, as it is contended by the 
friends of the administration, that it involves the re- 
newal of the charter, and, consequently, the existence 
of the Bank itself, still the banking system would stand 
almost untouched and unimpaired. Four hundred 
banks would still remain scattered over this wide re- 
public, and on the ruins of the United States Bank 
many would rise to be added to the present list. Under 
this aspect of the subject, the only possible question 
that would be presented for consideration would be, 
whether the banking system was more safe, more bene- 
ficial, or more constitutional, with or without the United 
States Bank. 

" If," continued Mr. Calhoun, " this was a question of 
Bank or no Bank — if it involved the existence of the 
banking system, it would, indeed, be a great question — 
one of the first magnitude ; and, with my present im- 
pression, long entertained and daily increasing, I would 
hesitate — long hesitate — before I would be found under 
the banner of the system. I have great doubts, if 
doubts they may be called, as to the soundness and 
tendency of the whole system, in all its modifications. 



320 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1833-34. 

I have great fears that it will be found hostile to liberty 
and the adv T ance of civilization — fatally hostile to lib- 
erty in our country, where the system exists in its 
worst and most dangerous form. Of all institutions 
affecting the great question of the distribution of wealth 
— a question least explored, and the most important of 
any in the whole range of political economy — the 
banking institution has, if not the greatest, one of the 
greatest, and, I fear, most pernicious influence on the 
mode of distribution. Were the question really before 
us, I would not shun the responsibility, as great as it 
might be, of freely and fully offering my sentiments on 
these deeply-important points; but as it is, I must content 
myself with the few remarks which I have thrown out." 
It will be seen from the foregoing remarks that Mr. 
Calhoun's matured opinions were decidedly adverse to 
a national bank. He regarded such an institution as 
an engine of consolidation, to be tolerated only for the 
time as a means of regulating the currency, which 
consisted mainly of bank paper receivable for govern- 
ment dues ; for so long as that was so receivable, he 
held that government was bound to regulate it. Upon 
the removal of the deposits, they had been confided to 
the custody of a number of banks selected in different 
parts of the country by the Secretary of the Treasury. 
The true question then, as Mr. Calhoun thought, was 
not in regard to a national bank, but whether a league 
of selected banks should be substituted for a single in- 
stitution, and he decidedly preferred one to one hun- 
dred. He also argued that the president had in fact 
created an immense bank, and would thereby control 
the currency of the country. 



1834.] POSITION IN REGARD TO THE BANK. 321 

"What, then," said he, " is the real question which now 
agitates the country ? I answer, it is a struggle between 
the executive and legislative departments of the govern- 
ment ; a struggle, not in relation to the existence of the 

' CO * 

Bank, but whether Congress or the President should have 
the power to create a bank, and, through it, the conse- 
quent control over the currency of the country. This is 
the real question. Let us not deceive ourselves. This 
league, this association, vivified and sustained by receiv- 
ing the deposits of the public money, and having their 
notes converted, by being received everywhere by the 
treasury, into the common currency of the country, is, 
to all intents and purposes, a bank of the United States 
— the executive bank of the United States, as distin- 
guished from that of Congress. However it might fail 
to perform satisfactorily the useful functions of the 
Bank of the United States, as incorporated by law, it 
would outstrip it — far outstrip it — in all its dangerous 
qualities, in extending the power, the influence, and the 
corruption of the government. It was impossible to 
conceive any institution more admirably calculated to 
advance these objects. Not only the selected banks, 
but the whole banking institutions of the country, and 
with it the entire money power, for the purpose of 
speculation, peculation, and corruption, would be placed 
under the control of the executive. A system of men- 
aces and promises will be established : of menace to 
the banks in possession of the deposits, but which 
might not be entirely subservient to executive views, 
and of promise of future favors to those who may not 
as yet enjoy its favors. Between the two, the banks 
would be left without honor or honesty, and a system 

14* 



322 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1837. 

of speculation and stock-jobbing would commence, un- 
equalled in the annals of our country." 

At this early period, had he been left free to act, by 
the condition of the country and the state of the cur- 
rency, as his judgment dictated, -he would have favored 
an entire separation of the government from the banks 
— a measure afterward proposed" under the name of 
the Independent Treasury. Nay, at this very time a 
proposition of that character was brought forward by 
General Gordon, a member of the House and a State 
Rights man, after a consultation with Mr. Calhoun and 
other friends, but it did not receive a favorable vote. 
The views of Mr. Calhoun, however, were presented 
with great distinctness in his speech. " So long,'"' he 
remarked, " as the question is one between a bank of 
the United States, incorporated by Congress, and that 
system of banks which has been created by the will of 
the executive, it is an insult to the understanding to 
discourse on the pernicious tendency and unconstitu- 
tionality of the Bank of the United States. To bring 
up that question fairly and legitimately, you must go 
one step further: you must divorce the government and 
the bank. You must refuse all connection with banks. 
You must neither receive, nor pay away bank-notes ; 
you must go back to the old system of the strong box, 
and of gold and silver. If you have a right to receive 
bank-notes at all — to treat them as monev by receiving 
them in your dues, or paying them away to creditors, 
you have a right to create a bank. Whatever the 
government receives and treats as money, is money in 
effect ; and if it be money, then they have the right, 
under the Constitution, to regulate it. Nay, they are 



1837.] SEPARATION OF BANK AND STATE. 323 

bound by "high obligation to adopt the most efficient 
means, according to the nature of that which they 
have recognized as money, to give it the utmost stabil- 
ity and uniformity of value. And if it be in the shape 
of bank-notes, the most efficient means of giving those 
qualities is a Bank of the United States, incorporated 
by Congress. Unless you give the highest practical 
uniformity to the value of bank-notes — so long as you 
receive them in your dues, and treat them as money, 
you violate that provision of the Constitution which 
provides that taxation shall be uniform throughout the 
United States. There is no other alternative, I repeat ; 
you must divorce the government entirely from the 
banking system, or, if not, you are bound to incorpo- 
rate a bank, as the only safe and efficient means of giv- 
ing stability and uniformity to the currency. And 
should the deposits not be restored, and the present 
illegal and unconstitutional connection between the ex- 
ecutive and the league of banks continue, I shall feel 
it my duty, if no one else moves, to introduce a meas- 
ure to prohibit government from receiving or touching 
bank-notes in any shape whatever, as the only means 
left of giving safety and stability to the currency, and 
saving the country from corruption and ruin.'' 

But Mr. Calhoun also saw and pointed out what he 
thought to be the true cause of the removal of the 
deposits. He attributed it to the desire of the executive 
to control the immense surplus revenue which had 
accumulated under the high tariff system for political 
purposes ; and he did not hesitate to condemn the 
legislation which had superinduced this state of things. 
" What," he asked, " is the cause of the present usurpa- 



324 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1837. 

tion of power on the part of the executive ? what the 
motive ? the temptation which has induced it to seize 
on the deposits ? What, but the large surplus revenue ? 
the eight or ten millions in the public treasury beyond 
the wants of the government ? And what has put so 
large an amount of money in the treasury when not 
needed? I answer, the protective system : that system 
which graduated the duties, not in reference to the 
w T ants of the government, but in reference to the 
importunities and demands of the manufacturers, and 
which poured millions of dollars into the treasury 
beyond the most profuse demands and even the extrava- 
gance of the government — taken — unlawfully taken — 
from the pockets of those who honestly made it. I hold 
that those who make are entitled to what they make 
against all the world except the government, and against 
it except to the extent of its legitimate and constitu- 
tional wants ; and that for the government to take one 
cent more is robbery. In violation of this sacred prin- 
ciple, Congress first removed the money by high 
duties, unjustly and unconstitutionally imposed, from 
the pockets of those who made it, where it was right- 
fully placed by all laws, human and divine, into the 
treasury. The executive, in his turn, following the 
example, has taken them from that deposit, and dis- 
tributed them among favorite and partisan banks. The 
means used have been the same in both cases. The 
Constitution gives to Congress the power to lay duties, 
with a view to revenue. This power, without regard- 
ing the object for which it was intended, forgetting that 
it was a great trust power, necessarily limited, by the 
very nature of such powers, to the subject and the 



1837.1 SEPABATION OF BANK AND STATE. 325 

object of the trust, was perverted to a use never intend- 
ed, that of protecting the industry of one portion of 
the country at the expense of another ; and, under this 
false interpretation, the money was transferred from 
its natural and just deposit, the pockets of those who 
made it, into the public treasury, as I have stated. In 
this, too, the executive followed the example of Con- 
gress. By the magic construction of a few simple 
words — ' unless otherwise ordered' — intended to confer 
on the Secretary of the Treasury a limited power — to 
give additional security to the public deposits, he has, 
in like manner, perverted this power, and made it the 
instrument, by similar sophistry, of drawing the money 
from the treasury, and bestowing it, as I have stated, on 
favorite and partisan banks. Would to God, said Mr. 
C, would to God I could reverse the whole of this 
nefarious operation, and terminate the controversy by 
returning the money to the pockets of the honest and 
industrious citizens, by the sweat of whose brows it 
was made, with whom only it can be rightfully deposi- 
ted. But as this cannot be done, I must content mvself 
by giving a vote to return it to the public treasury, 
where it was ordered to be deposited by an act of the 
Legislature." 

Entertaining these views, it will not appear at all 
inconsistent in Mr. Calhoun, that he favored a proposi- 
tion to re-charter the United States Bank at this session. 
In a speech upon a proposition made by Mr. Webster 
to renew the charter of the Bank for six years, he re- 
viewed the whole question of the currency, showed its 
unsoundness, and proposed to continue the bank for 
twelve years, in order, as he said, to " unbank the 



326 JOIIV CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1834-35. 

banks," — or in other words to restore a sound currency, 
and then to do away with the pernicious banking sys- 
tem, at least so far as it had any connection with the 
general government. 

Having approved of the resolutions condemning the 
removal of the deposits, Mr. Calhoun was also totally 
opposed to the reception of the protest of President 
Jackson. He repeatedly declared, however, that he 
was unconnected with either party, and when the 
opposition assumed the name of " whigs" in the winter 
of 1834, he expressly disclaimed, in his place in the 
ate, all title to the appellation on the part of himself 
and his State Rights friends. He was a State Rights 
man, he said ; he wished to be nothing more, and would 
be content with nothing less. At the session of 1833-3 1, 
he supported the bill raising the relative value of gold 
compared with silver commonly called the "Gold Bill," 
and the bill to establish branch mints, both of which 
were favorite measures of the administration. These 
he voted for, because they were calculated to aid in 
securing the great end he hoped to accomplish — the 
restoration of a sound currency. Consistency with his 
cherished principles required this course, and where 
these were at stake he never hesitated to come to their 
defence. 

Yet upon minor questions he usually acted with the 
opposition. He utterly repudiated the idea of any alli- 
ance with them, but as he had been attacked, sometimes 
Jar too grossly, in the administration prints, he voted 
for the most part with the opposition members upon 
appointments and the election of committees and officers. 

The vast surplus revenue which had accumulated 



1884-35.] EXECUTIVE PATRONAGE. 327 

was a constant source of apprehension to him. He 
feared the power which it would give to the president, 
and at the session of 1834-35, a special committee of 
nine members was raised, on his motion, in order to 
inquire into the extent of the executive patronage, and 
the expediency and practicability of reducing it. He 
was the chairman of the committee, and made an able 
report, showing the great danger to be apprehended 
from the surplus, which he estimated to be nine millions 
of dollars annually. All parties now saw the fearful 
evil occasioned by the gradual but slow reduction of 
the high duties, and the enormous sales of the public 
lands which took place during that speculating era. 
The surplus on deposit with the banks furnished vast 
facilities for business operations, whether mere specula- 
tive or otherwise, and the volume of the currency was 
being rapidly expanded. As a remedy for the evil, the 
administration proposed either to absorb the surplus by 
expenditures for military defences or other works of 
general welfare, or, in the second place, to vest it in 
government stocks. Mr. Calhoun did not approve of 
either measure, because, as he thought, that the first 
would increase the executive patronage, and pave the 
way for excessive expenditures, for which another high 
tariff would eventually be required ; and that the second 
would entangle the government with state stocks. 

He therefore favored the proposition to regulate the 
deposits with the banks, and to deposit the surplus with 
the states. A bill making provision for this regulation 
of the deposit banks, and the disposition of the surplus, 
passed Congress in June, 1836, which received his vote, 
and under the circumstances, his entire approval. He 



328 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1836-37. 

would gladly have favored any feasible project to 
restore the money to the people who had been taxed to 
this extent, but he saw this was impossible, and there- 
fore supported the deposit measure as the only alterna- 
tive. 

The term of service for which Mr. Calhoun had been 
originally chosen expired in March, 1835, but at the 
session of the legislature previous, he was chosen for a 
second term by a large and flattering vote. South 
Carolina placed too high an estimate on his past services 
to part with them so soon, and he was too warmly 
attached to her to desire to be released from his position. 

At the session of 1835-36, Mr. Calhoun voted against 
the favorite measure of Mr. Clay, to distribute the pro- 
ceeds of the public lands among the states, as he never 
failed to do when this question was presented, in what- 
soever shape or form it assumed. 

During this session, also, another important question 
occupied Mr. Calhoun's attention. This was the sub- 
ject of the reception of abolition petitions. Societies 
had been organized in the northern and middle states 
for the avowed purpose of procuring the abolition of 
slavery in the District of Columbia, with the intention 
doubtless of effecting the same thing ultimately in the 
southern states. Presses were purchased, and news- 
papers and pamphlets issued, teeming with the foulest 
abuse and the most calumnious and unfounded accusa- 
tions — all directed against the owners of slaves. Peti- 
tions of the same character with the newspapers and 
pamphlets were also put in circulation, signed, and 
forwarded to Washington for presentation in one or 
other of the two Houses of Congress. 



1836-37.] abolitionism. 329 

Viewing these fanatical efforts, — however well in- 
tentioned might be the motives of those concerned in 
them who acted from what he deemed considerations 
of false philanthropy and benevolence, — as being de- 
cidedly dangerous in their tendency as respected the 
peace and security of the slave-holding states, he 
resisted them at the outset. He was always in favor, 
as he expressed it, of meeting "the enemy on the fron- 
tier." In February, 1838, he made an able report from 
a select committee appointed to consider that portion 
of the president's message recommending the adoption 
of efficient measures to prevent the circulation of 
incendiary publications or abolition petitions, pamphlets, 
&c, through the mails. This report was accompanied 
by a bill, which he supported in an earnest and power- 
ful speech delivered on the twelfth of April, 1836.* A 
difficulty now arose upon this question. The northern 
Whigs were in great part inclined to favor the abolition- 
ists, and the Republicans were the reverse; but both 
parties in Congress thought it would be advisable not to 
reject the petitions on the subject of abolitionism. The 
Republican members especially, were apprehensive that 
the rejection would be regarded by their constituents 
as a denial, of the right of petition, and this would raise 
a new issue that might injure them as a party. Mr. 
Calhoun earnestly combated this idea, and in February, 
1837, he delivered another speech on the subject of the re- 
ception of abolition petitions, in which he explained their 
incendiary character, and pointed out the offensive and 
insulting language used toward the slaveholding states. 

* The bill was ordered to a third reading by the casting vote of tho 
vice-president (Mr. Van Buren), but did not finally, become a lavr. 



330 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1837. 



SPEECH OX THE RECEPTION OF ABOLITION PETITIONS. 

It' the time of the Senate permitted, I should feel it to be my duty to 
call for the reading of the mass of petitions on the table, in order that we 
might know what language they hold towards the slave-holding states 
and their institutions ; but as it will not, I have selected indiscriminate- 
ly from the pile, two: one from those in manuscript, and the other from 
the printed ; and. without knowing their contents, will call for the read- 
ing of them, so that we may judge, by them, of the character of the 
whole. 

(Here the Secretary, on the call of Mr. Calhoun, read the two petitions.) 

Such, (resumed Mr. C.,) is the language held towards us and ours; 
the peculiar institution of the South, that on the maintenance of which 
the very existence of the slaveholding states depends, is pronounced to 
be sinful and odious, in the sight of God and man; and this with a sys- 
tematic design of rendering us hateful in the eyes of the world, with a 
view to a general crusade against us and our institutions. This, too, in 
the legislative halls of the Union, created by these confederated states 
for the better protection of their peace, their safety, and their respective 
institutions; and yet we, the representatives of twelve of these sove- 
reign states against whom this deadly war is waged, are expected to 
sit here in silence, hearing ourselves and our constituents day after day 
denounced, without uttering a word ; if we but open our lips, the charge 
of agitation is resounded on all sides, and we are held up as seeking to 
aggravate the evil which we resist. Every reflecting mind must see in 
ail this a state of things deeply and dangerously diseased. 

I do not belong, sail Mr. C, to the school which holds that aggression 
is to be met by concession. Mine is the opposite creed, which teaches 
that encroachments must be met at the beginning, and that those who 
act on the opposite principle are prepared to become slaves. In this 
case, in particular, I hold concession or compromise to be fatal. If we 
concede an inch, concession would follow concession — compromise would 
follow compromise, until our ranks would be so broken that effectual 
resistance would be impossible. We must meet the enemy on the fron- 
tier, widi a fixed determination of maintaining our position at every 
hazard. Consent to receive these insulting petitions, and the next de- 
mand will be that they be referred to a committee, in order that they 
may be deliberated and acted upon. At the last session, we were 



1837.] SPEECH ON ABOLITION PETITIONS. 331 

modestly asked to receive them simply to lay them on the table, without 
any view of ulterior action. I then told the senator from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Buchanan), who strongly urged that course in the Senate, that it 
was a position that could not be maintained ; as the argument in favor of 
acting on the petitions, if we were bound to receive, could not be resisted. 
I then said that the next step would be to refer the petition to a 
committee, and 1 already see indications that such is now the intention. 
If we yield, that will be followed by another, and we would thus pro- 
ceed, step by step, to the final consummation of the object of these peti- 
tions. We are now told that the most effectual mode of arresting the 
progress of abolition is to reason it down : and with this view, it is urged 
that the petitions ought to be referred to a committee. That is the very 
ground which was taken at the last session in the other house ; but, in- 
stead of arresting its progress, it has since advanced more rapidly than 
ever. The most unquestionable right may be rendered doubtful if once 
admitted to be a subject of controversy, and that would be the case in 
the present instance. The subject is beyond the jurisdiction of Congress 
— they have no right to touch it in any shape or form, or to make it the 
subject of deliberation or discussion. 

In opposition to this view, it is urged that Congress is bound by the 
Constitution to receive petitions in every case and on every subject, 
whether within its constitutional competency or not. I hold the doctrine 
to be absurd, and do solemnly believe that it would be as easy to prove 
that it has the right to abolish slavery, as that it is bound to receive 
petitions for that purpose. The very existence of the rule that requires 
a question to be put on the reception of petitions, is conclusive to show 
that there is no such obligation. It has been a standing rule from the 
commencement of the government, and clearly shows the sense of those 
who formed the Constitution on this point. The question on the recep- 
tion would be absurd, if, as is contended, we are bound to receive : but 
I do not intend to argue the question ; I discussed it fully at the last 
session, and the arguments then advanced neither have nor can be an- 
swered. 

As widely as this incendiary spirit has spread, it has not yet infected 
this body, or the great mass of the intelligent and business portion of 
the North; but unless it be speedily stopped, it will spread and work 
upward till it brings the two great sections of the Union into deadly 
conflict. This is not a new impression with me. Several years since, 
in a discussion with one of the senators from Massachusetts (Mr. 



332 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1837. 

Webster), before this fell spirit had showed itself, I then predicted that 
the doctrine of the proclamation and the force bill — that this govern- 
ment had a right, in the last resort, to determine the extent of its own 
powers, and enforce it at the point of the bayonet, which was so warmly 
maintained by that senator — would at no distant day arouse the dor- 
mant spirit of Abolitionism ; I told him that the doctrine was tantamount 
to the assumption of unlimited power on the part of the government, 
and that such would be the impression on the public mind in a large 
portion of the Union. The consequence would be inevitable — a large 
portion of the Northern States believed slavery to be a sin, and would 
believe it to be an obligation of conscience to abolish it, if they should 
feel themselves in any degree responsible for its continuance, and that 
his doctrine would necessarily lead to the belief of such responsibility. 
I then predicted that it would commence, as it has, with this fanatical 
portion of society ; and that they would begin their operation on the 
ignorant, the weak, the young, an J the thoughtless, and would gradually 
extend upward till they became strong enough to obtain political con- 
trol, when he, and others holding the highest stations in society, would, 
however reluctant, be compelled to yield to their doctrine, or be driven 
into obscurity. But four years have since elapsed, and all this is already 
in a course of regular fulfilment. 

Standing at the point of time at which we have now arrived, it will 
not be more difficult to trace the course of future events now than it 
was then. Those who imagine that the spirit now abroad in the Xorth 
will die away of itself without a shock or convulsion, have formed a 
very inadequate conception of its real character ; it will continue to rise 
and spread, unless prompt and efficient measures to stay its progress be 
adopted. Already it has taken possession of the pulpit, of the schools, 
and, to a considerable extent, of the press ; those great instruments by 
which the mind of the rising generation will be formed. 

However sound the great body of the non-slaveholding states are at 
present, in the course of a few years they will be succeeded by those 
who have been taught to hate the people and institutions of nearly one 
half of this Union, with a hatred more deadly than one hostile nation 
ever entertained towards another. It is easy to see the end. By the 
necessary course of events, if left to themselves, we must become, finally, 
two people. It is impossible, under the deadly hatred which must 
spring up between the two great sections, if the present causes are per- 
mitted to operate unchecked, that we should continue under the same 



1837.] SEPARATION OF GOVERNENT FROM BANKS. 333 

political system. The conflicting elements would burst the Union 
asunder, as powerful as are the links which hold it together. Abolition 
and the Union cannot coexist. As the friend of the Union, I openly 
proclaim it, and the sooner it is known the better. The former may 
now be controlled, but in a short time it will be beyond the power of 
mau to arrest the course of events. We of the South will not, cannot 
surrender our institutions. To maintain the existing relations between 
the two races inhabiting that section of the Union is indispensable to 
the peace and happiness of both. It cannot be subverted without 
drenching the country in blood, and extirpating one or other of the 
races. Be it good or bad, it has grown up with our societies and insti- 
tutions, and is so interwoven with them that to destroy it would be to 
destroy us as a people. But let me not be understood as admitting, 
even by implication, that the existing relations between the two races, 
in the slaveholding states, is an evil : far otherwise ; I hold it to be a 
good, as it has thus far proven itself to be, to both, and will continue to 
prove so, if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition. I appeal to 
facts. Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the 
dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and 
so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually. It 
came among us in a low, degraded, and savage condition, and, in the 
course of a few generations, it has grown up under the fostering care of 
our institutions, as reviled as they have been, to its present compara- 
tive civilized condition. This, with the rapid increase of numbers, is 
conclusive proof of the general happiness of the race, in spite of all the 
exaggerated tales to the contrary. 

In the mean time, the white or European race has not degenerated. 
It has kept pace with its brethren in other sections of the Union where 
slavery does not exist. It is odious to make comparison ; but I appeal 
to all sides whether the South is not equal in virtue, intelligence, pa- 
triotism, courage, disinterestedness, and all the high qualities which 
adorn our .nature. I ask whether we have not contributed our full 
share of talents and political wisdom in forming and sustaining this 
political fabric: and whether we have not constantly inclined most 
strongly to the side of liberty, and been the first to see, and first to 
resist, the encroachments of power. In one thing only are we inferior 
— the arts of gain ; we acknowledge that we are less wealthy than the 
Northern section of this Union, but I trace this mainly to the fiscal 
action of this government, which has extracted much from, and spent 



334 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1837. 

little among us. Had it been the reverse — if the exaction had been 
from the other section, and the expenditure with us — this point of su- 
periority would not be against us now, as it was not at the formation of 
this government. 

But I take higher ground. I hold that, in the present state of civili- 
zation, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, 
and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought to- 
gether, the relation now existing in the slaveholding states between the 
two is, instead of an evil, a good — a positive good. I feel myself called 
upon to speak freely upon the subject, where the honor and interests 
of those I represent are involved. I hold, then, that there never has 
yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one portion of- the 
community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of the other. 
Broad and general as is this assertion, it is fully borne out by history. 
This is not the proper occasion, but if it were, it would not be difficult 
to trace the various devices by which the wealth of all civilized com- 
munities has been so unequally divided, and to show by what means 
so small a share has been allotted to those by whose labor it was pro- 
duced, and so large a share given to the non-producing class. The de- 
vices are almost innumerable, from the brute force and gross supersti- 
tion of ancient times, to the subtle and artful fiscal contrivances of mod- 
ern. I might well challenge a comparison between them and the 
more direct, simple, and patriarchal mode by which the labor of the 
African race is among us commanded by the European. I may say, 
with truth, that in few countries so much is left to the share of the 
laborer, and so little exacted from him, or where there is more kind 
attention to him in sickness or infirmities of age. Compare his condi- 
tion with the tenants of the poor-houses in the most civilized portions 
of Europe — look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on the one 
hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintend- 
ing care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn 
and wretched condition of the pauper in the poor-house. But I will 
not dwell on this aspect of the question: I turn to the political ; and 
here I fearlessly assert, that the existing relation between the two races 
in the South, against which these blind fanatics are waging war, forms 
the most solid and durable foundation on which to rear free and stable 
political institutions. It is useless to disguise the fact. There is, and 
alwavs has been, in an advanced stage of wealth and civilization, a 
conflict between labor and capital. The condition of society in the 



1837.] SPEECH ON ABOLITION PETITIONS. 335 

South exempts us from the disorders and dangers resulting from this 
conflict; and which explains why it is that the political condition of the 
slaveholding states has been so much more stable and quiet than those 
of the North. The advantages of the former, in this respect, will be- 
come more and more manifest, if left undisturbed by interference from 
without, as the country advances in wealth and numbers. We have, in 
fact, but just entered that condition of society where the strength and 
durability of our political institutions are to be tested ; and I venture 
nothing in predicting that the experience of the next generation will 
fully test how vastly more favorable our condition of society is to that 
of other sections for free and stable institutions, provided we are not 
disturbed by the interference of others, or shall have sufficient intelli- 
gence and spirit to resist promptly and successfully such interference. 
It rests with ourselves to meet and repel them. I look not for aid to 
this government, or to the other states; not but there are kind feelings 
towards us on the part of the great body of the non-slaveholding states ; 
but, as kind as their feelings may be, we may rest assured that no 
political party in those states will risk their ascendency for our safety. 
If we do not defend ourselves, none will defend us ; if we yield, we 
will be more and more pressed as we recede ; ami, if we submit, we 
will be trampled under foot. Be assured that emancipation itself 
would not satisfy these fanatics : that gained, the next step would be 
to raise the negroes to a social and political equality with the whites; 
and, that being effected, we would soon find the present condition of 
the two races reversed. They, and their Northern allies, would be the 
masters, and we the slaves; the condition of the white race in the 
British West India Islands, as bad as it is, would be happiness to ours ; 
there the mother-country is interested in sustaining the supremacy of 
the European race. It is true that the authority of the former master 
is destroyed, but the African will there still be a slave, not to individu- 
als, but to the community — forced to labor, not by the authority of the 
overseer, but by the bayonet of the soldiery and the rod of the civil 



magistrate. 



Surrounded, as the slaveholding states are, with such imminent perils, 
I rejoice to think that our means of defence are 'ample, if we shall 
prove to have the intelligence and spirit to see and apply them before 
it is too late. All we want is concert, to lay aside all party differences, 
and unite with zeal and energy in repelling approaching dangers. Let 
there be concert of action, and we shall find ample means of security 



336 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1837. 

without resorting to secession or disunion. I speak with full knowl- 
edge and a thorough examination of the subject, and, for one, see ray- 
way clearly. One thing alarms me — the eager pursuit of gain which 
overspreads the land, and which absorbs every faculty of the mind and 
every feeling of the heart. Of all passions, avarice is the most blind 
and compromising — the last to see, and the first to yield to danger. I 
dare not hope that anything I can say will arouse the South to a due 
sense of danger; I fear it is beyond the power of mortal voice to 
awaken it in time from the fatal security into which it has fallen. 

So conclusive were the objections urged by Mr. Cal- 
houn, and so powerfully were they presented, that a 
majority oi the Senate came partly over to him, and it 
was agreed that the motion to receive petitions of this 
character should be laid upon the table, which has been 
the rule uniformly adopted since that time. 

In January, 1837, Mr. Calhoun made another very 
able speech in opposition to the admission of the state 
of Michigan, — his op-position being based entirely upon 
the ground, that there had been no regular convention 
held to approve the terms of admission prescribed by 
Congress. 

Meanwhile Mr. Van Buren had been elected to the 
presidency of the United States. Mr. Calhoun was 
comparatively a silent spectator of the contest. He 
adhered to his old position of neutrality, and advised 
his friends in South Carolina not to vote for either of 
the Whig candidates, Judge White or Air. Clay, and in 
other states he recommended their support of the 
former. South Carolina gave her vote for Willie P. 
Mangum and John Tyler, both State Rio-hts men. 

The inaugural message of Mr. Van Buren, particu- 
larly so far as it related to the abolition excitement, 
was entirely satisfactory to Mr. Calhoun. A few 



1837.] SPEECH ON INDEPENDENT TREASURY. 337 

weeks passed, and the terrible commercial revulsion 
of 1837 swept over the country as with the besom of 
destruction. Mr. Calhoun had long anticipated this 
disaster, and had advised his friends engaged in trade 
or connected with banks to reef their sails before the 
blast of the tempest came in its fury upon them. Con- 
gress was now called together by executive proclama- 
tion, and commenced their session on the 4th day of 
September. Previous to this time it had been inti- 
mated that the president would recommend an en- 
tire separation of the government from the banks, and 
in a letter witten from Edgefield, when on his way to 
Washington, Mr. Calhoun signified his intention to 
support the administration if such should be their 
course. 

As had been predicted, Mr. Van Buren recommended 
the divorce of bank and state, which had already taken 
place in point of fact by the suspension of specie pay- 
ments on the part of the banks ; and in a speech on a 
bill providing for the issue of treasury notes, delivered 
on the 19th of September, and in the following speech 
on the main question, delivered on the 3d day of Oc- 
tober, Mr. Calhoun fully indicated his intentions to go 
with the administration, and to secure an entire sepa- 
ration of the government from the banks :•— - 

SPEECH IN FAVOR OF A SEPARATION OF THE GOVERN- 
MENT FROM THE BANKS. 

Mr. President: In reviewing this discussion, I have been struck 
with the fact, that the argument on the opposite side has been limited, 
almost exclusively, to the questions of relief and the currency. These 
are, undoubtedly, important questions, and well deserving the deliberate 
consideration of the Senate ; but there are other questions involved in 

15 



338 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1837. 

this issue of a far more elevated characters which more imperiously de- 
mand our attention. The banks have ceased to be mere moneyed in- 
corporations. They have become great political institutions, with vast 
influence over the welfare of the community ; so much so, that a highly 
distinguished senator (Mr. Clay) has declared, in his place, that the 
question of the disunion of the government and the banks involved in 
its consequences the disunion of the states themselves. "With this dec- 
laration sounding in our ears, it is time to look into the origin of a sys- 
tem which has already acquired such mighty influence ; to inquire into 
the causes which have produced it, and whether they are still on the 
increase ; in what they will terminate, if left to themselves ; and, 
finally, whether the system is favorable to the permanency of our free 
institutions ; to the industry and business of the country ; and above 
all, to the moral and intellectual development of the community. I 
feel the vast importance and magnitude of these topics, as well as 
their great delicacy. I shall touch them with extreme reluctance, and 
only because I believe them to belong to the occasion, and that it would 
be a dereliction of public duty to withhold any opinion, which I have 
deliberately formed, on the subject under discussion. 

The rise and progress of the banking system is one of the most re- 
markable and curious phenomena of modern times. Its origin is mod- 
ern and humble, and gave no indication of the extraordinary growth 
and influence which it was destined to attain. It dates back to 1609, 
the year that the Bank of Amsterdam was established. Other bank- 
ing institutions preceded it ; but they were insulated, and not immedi- 
ately connected with the systems which have since sprung up, and 
which may be distinctly traced to that bank, which was a bank of de- 
posit — a mere storehouse — established under the authority of that great 
commercial metropolis, for the purpose of safe-keeping the precious 
metals, and facilitating the vast system of exchanges which then centred 
there. The whole system was the most simple and beautiful that, can 
be imagined. The depositor, on delivering his bullion or coin in store, 
received a credit, estimated at the standard value on the books of the 
bank, and a certificate of deposit for the amount, which was transfer- 
able from hand to hand, and entitled the holder to withdraw the de- 
posit on payment of a moderate fee for the expense and hazard of 
safe-keeping. These certificates became, in fact, the circulating medium 
of the community, performing, as it were, the hazard and drudgery, 
while the precious metals, which they, in truth, represented, guilder for 



1837.] SEPARATION OF GOVERNMENT FROM BANKS. 339 

guilder, lay quietly in store, without being exposed to the wear and 
tear, or losses incidental to actual use. It was thus a paper currency 
was created, having all the solidity, safety, and uniformity of a metallic, 
with the facility belonging to that of paper. The whole arrangement 
was admirable, and worthy of the strong sense and downright honesty 
of the people with whom it originated. 

Out of this, which may be called the first era of the system, grew 
the bank of deposit, discount, and circulation — a great and mighty 
change, destined to effect a revolution in the condition of modern so- 
ciety. It is not difficult to explain how the one system should spring 
from the other, notwithstanding the striking dissimilarity in features 
and character between the offspring and the parent. A vast sum, not less 
than three millions sterling, accumulated and remained habitually in 
deposit in the Bank of Amsterdam, the place of the returned certifi- 
cates being constantly supplied by new depositors. With so vast a 
standing deposit, it required but little reflection to perceive that a very 
large portion of it might be withdrawn, and that a sufficient amount 
would be still left to meet the returning certificates ; or, what would 
be the same in effect, that an equal amount of fictitious certificates 
might be issued beyond the sum actually deposited. Either process, 
if interest be charged on the deposits withdrawn, or the fictitious cer- 
tificates issued, would be a near approach to a bank of discount. Thi3 
once seen, it required but little reflection to perceive that the same 
process would be equally applicable to a capital placed in bank as 
stock ; and from that the transition was easy to issuing bank-notes pay- 
able on demand, on bills of exchange, or promissory notes, having but 
a short time to run. These, combined, constitute the elements of a 
bank of discount, deposit, and circulation. 

Modern ingenuity and dishonesty would not have been long in per- 
ceiving and turning such advantages to account; but the faculties of 
the plain Belgian were either too blunt to perceive, or his honesty too 
stern to avail himself of them. To his honor, there is reason to be- 
lieve, notwithstanding the temptation, the deposits were sacredly kept, 
and that for every certificate in circulation, there was a corresponding 
amount in bullion or coin in store. It was reserved for another peo- 
ple, either more ingenious or le?s scrupulous, to make the change. 

The Bank of England was incorporated in 1694, eighty-five years 
after that of Amsterdam, and was the first bank of deposit, discouut, 
and circulation. Its capital was £1,200,000, consisting wholly of gov- 



340 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1837. 

ernment stock, bearing an interest of eight per cent, per annum. Its 
notes were received in the dues of the government, and the public reve- 
nue -was deposited in the bank. It was authorized to circulate ex- 
chequer bills, and make loans to government. Let us pause for a mo- 
ment, and contemplate this complex and potent machine, under its 
various character and functions. 

As a bank of deposit, it was authorized to receive deposits, not 
simply for safe-keeping, to be returned when demanded by the depos- 
itor, but to be used and loaned out for the benefit of the institution, 
care being taken always to be provided with the means of return- 
ing an equal amount, when demanded. As a bank of discount and 
circulation, it issued its notes on the faith of its capital stock and de- 
posits, or discounted bills of exchange and promissory notes backed by 
responsible endorsers, charging an interest something greater than was 
authorized by law to be charged on loans ; and thus allowing it, for 
the use of its credit, a higher rate of compensation than what individ- 
uals were authorized to receive for the use and hazard of monev or 
capital loaned out. It will, perhaps, place this point in a clear light, if 
we should consider the transaction in its true character, not as a loan, 
but as a mere exchange of credit. In discounting, the bank takes, in 
the shape of a promissory note, the credit of an individual so good that 
another, equally responsible, endorses his note for nothing, and gives 
out its credit in the form of a bank-note. The transaction is obviously 
a mere exchange of credit. If the drawer and endorser break, the loss 
is the Bank's ; but if the Bank breaks, the loss falls on the community ; 
and yet this transaction, so dissimilar, is confounded with a loan, and 
the bank permitted to charge, on a mere exchange of credit, in which 
the hazard of the breaking of the drawer and endorser is incurred by 
the Bank, and that of the Bank by the community, a higher sum than 
the legal rate of interest on a loan ; in which, besides the use cf his 
capital, the hazard is all on the side of the lender. 

Turning from these to the advantages which it derived from its con- 
nection with the government, we shall find them not less striking. 
Among the first of these in importance is the fact of its notes being 
received in the dues of the government, by which the credit of the 
government wag added to that of the Bank, which added so greatly to 
the increase of its circulation. These, again, when collected by the 
government, were placed in deposit in the Bank; thus giving to it 
not only the profit resulting from their abstraction from circulation, 



1837.] SEPARATION OF GOVERNMENT FROM BANKS. 341 

from the time of collecting till disbursement, but also that from the use 
of the public deposits in the interval. To complete the picture, the 
Bank, in its capacity of lender to the government, in fact paid its own 
notes, which rested on the faith of the government stock, on which it 
was drawing eight per cent. ; so that, in truth, it but loaned to the gov- 
ernment its own credit. 

Such were the extraordinary advantages conferred on this institution, 
and of which it had an exclusive monopoly ; and these are the causes 
which gave such an extraordinary impulse to its growth and influence, 
that it increased in a little more than a hundred years — from 1694, 
when the second era of the system commenced, with the establishment 
of the Bank of England, to 1797, when it terminated— from 1,200,000Z. 
to nearly 11,000,000/., and this mainly by the addition to its capital 
through loans to the government above the profits of its annual divi- 
dends. Before entering on the third era of the system, I pause to make 
a few reflections on the second. 

I am struck, in casting my eyes over it, to find that, notwithstanding 
the great dissimilarity of features which the system had assumed in 
passing from a mere bank of deposit, to that of deposit, discount, and 
circulation, the operation of the latter was confounded, throughout this 
long period, as it regards the effects on the currency, with the bank of 
deposit. Its notes were universally regarded as representing gold and 
silver, and as depending on that representation exclusively for their cir- 
culation ; as much so as did the certificates of deposit in the original Bank 
of Amsterdam. No one supposed that they could retain their credit for a 
moment after they ceased to be convertible into the metals on demand ; 
nor were they supposed to have the effect of increasing the aggregate 
amount of the currency ; nor, of course, of increasing prices. In a word, 
they were in the public mind as completely identified with the metallic 
currency as if every note in circulation had laid up in the vaults of the 
Bank an equal amount, pound for pound, into which all its paper could 
be converted the moment it was presented. 

All this was a great delusion. The issues of the Bank never did 
represent, from the first, the precious metals. Instead of the representa- 
tives, its notes were, in reality, the substitute for coin. Instead of being 
the mere drudges, performing all the out-door service, while the coins 
reposed at ease in the vaults of the banks, free from wear and tear, 
and the hazard of loss or destruction, as did the certificates of deposit 
in the original Bank of Amsterdam, they substituted, degraded, and 



342 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1837. 

banished the coins. Every note circulated became the substitute of so 
much coin, and dispensed with it in circulation, and thereby depreciated 
the value of the precious metals, and increased their consumption in the 
same proportion ; while it diminished in the same degree the supply, 
by rendering mining less profitable. The system assumed gold and 
silver as the basis of its circulation ; and yet, by the laws of its nature, 
just as it. increased its circulation, in the same degree the foundation on 
which the system stood was weakened. The consumption of the metals 
increased, and the supply diminished. As the weight of the super- 
structure increased, just in the same proportion its foundation was un- 
dermined and weakened. Thus the germ of destruction was implanted 
in the system at its birth ; has expanded with its growth, and must 
terminate, finally, in its dissolution, unless, indeed, it should, by some 
transition, entirely change its nature, and pass into some other and en- 
tirely different organic form. The conflict between bank circulation 
and metallic (though not perceived in the first stage of the system, 
when they were supposed to be indissolubly connected) is mortal ; one 
or the other must perish in the struggle. Such is the decree of fate ; 
it is irreversible. 

Near the close of the second era, the system passed the Atlantic, 
and took root in our country, where it found the soil still more fertile, 
and the climate more congenial than even in the parent country. The 
Bank of North America was established in 1781, with a capital of 
$400,000, and bearing all the features of its prototype, the Bank of 
England. In the short space of a little more than half a century, the 
system has expanded from one bank to about eight hundred, including 
branches (no one knows the exact number, so rapid the increase), and 
from a capital of less than half a million to about $300,000,000, with- 
out, apparently, exhausting or diminishing its capacity to increase. So 
accelerated has been its growth with us, from causes which I explained 
on a former occasion,* that already it has approached a point much 
nearer the limits beyond which the system, in its present form, cannot 
advance, than in England. 

During the year 1797, the Bank of England suspended specie pay- 
ments ; an event destined, by its consequences, to effect a revolution in 
public opinion in relation to the system, and to accelerate the period 



* See Speech on Mr. Webster's motion to renew the charter of the 
United States Bank in 1834. 



1837.] SEPARATION OF GOVERNMENT FROM BANKS. 343 

which must determine its fate. England was then engaged in that 
gigantic struggle which originated in the French Revolution, and her 
financial operations were on the most extended scale, followed by a 
corresponding increase in the action of the Bank, as her fiscal agent. 
It sunk under its over-action. Specie payments were suspended. Panic 
and dismay spread through the land — so deep and durable was the 
impression that the credit of the Bank depended exclusively on the 
punctuality of its payments. 

In the midst of the alarm, an act of Parliament was passed making 
the notes of the Bank a legal tender; and, to the surprise of all, the 
institution proceeded on, apparently without any diminution of its 
credit. Its notes circulated freely as ever, and without any deprecia- 
tion, for a time, compared with gold and silver ; and continued so to do 
for upward of twenty years, with an average diminution of about one 
per cent, per annum. This shock did much to dispel the delusion that 
bank-notes represented gold and silver, and that they circulated in con- 
sequence of such representation, but without entirely obliterating the 
old impression which had taken such strong hold on the public mind. 
The credit of its notes during the suspension was generally attributed 
to the tender act, and the great and united resources of the Bank aud 
the government. 

But an event followed of the same kind, under circumstances entirely 
different, which did more than any preceding to shed light on the true 
nature of the system, and to unfold its vast capacity to sustain itself 
without exterior aid. "We finally became involved in the mighty strug- 
gle that had so long desolated Europe and enriched our country. War 
was declared against Great Britain in 1812, and in the short space of one 
year our feeble banking system sunk under the increased fiscal action 
of government. I was then a member of the other house, and had 
taken my full share of responsibility in the measures which had led to 
that result. I shall never forget the sensation which the suspension, 
and the certain anticipation of the prostration of the currency of the 
country, as a consequence, excited in my mind. We could resort to no 
tender act ; we had no great central regulating power, like the Bank 
of England; and the credit and resources of the government were 
comparatively small. Under such circumstances, I looked forward to 
a sudden and great depreciation of bank-notes, and that they would 
fall speedily as low as the old continental money. Guess my surprise 
when I saw them sustain their credit with scarcely any depreciation, 



344 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1837. 

for a time, from the shock. I distinctly recollect when I first asked 
myself the question, What was the cause \ and which directed my in- 
quiry into the extraordinary phenomenon. I soon saw that the system 
contained within itself a self-sustaining power ; that there was between 
the banks and the community, mutually, the relation of debtor and 
creditor, there being at all times something more due to the banks from 
the community than from the latter to the former. I saw, in this re- 
ciprocal relation of debts and credits, that the demand of the banks on 
the community was greater than the amount of their notes in circulation 
could meet ; and that, consequently, so long as their debtors were sol- 
vent, and bound to pay at short periods, their notes could not fail to 
be at or near a par with gold and silver. I also saw that, as their 
debtors were principally the merchants, they would take bank-notes to 
meet their bank debts, and that that which the merchant and the gov- 
ernment, who are the great money-dealers, take, the rest of the com- 
munity would also take. Seeing all this, I clearly perceived that self- 
sustaining principle which poised the system, self-balanced, like some 
-celestial body, moving with scarcely a perceptible deviation from its 
path, from the concussion it had received. 

Shortly after the termination of the war, specie payments were 
coerced with us by the establishment of a National Bank, and a few 
years afterward, in Great Britain, by an act of Parliament. In both 
countries the restoration was followed by wide-spread distress, as it 
always must be when effected by coercion \ for the simple reason that 
banks cannot pay unless their debtors first pay, and that to coerce the 
banks compels them to coerce their debtors before they have the 
means to pay. Their failure must be the consequence; and this in- 
volves the failure of the banks themselves, carrying with it universal 
distress. Hence I am opposed to all kinds of coercion, and am in favor 
of leaving the disease to time, with the action of public sentiment and 
the states, to which the banks are alone responsible. 

But to proceed with my narrative. Although specie payments were 
restored, and the system apparently placed where it was before the 
suspension, the great capacity it proved to possess of sustaining itself 
without specie payments, was not forgot by those who had its direction. 
The impression that it was indispensable to the circulation of bank-notes 
that they should represent the precious metals, was almost obliterated ; 
and the latter were regarded rather as restrictions on the free and 
profitable operation of the system than as the means of its security. 



1837.] SEPARATION OF GOVERNMENT FROM BANKS. 345 

Hence a feeling of opposition to gold and silver gradually grew up on 
the part of the banks, which created an esprit du corps, followed by a 
moral resistance to specie payments, if I may so express myself, which 
in fact suspended, in a great degree, the conversion of their notes into 
the precious metals, long before the present suspension. With the 
growth of this feeling, banking business assumed a bolder character, 
and its profits were proportionably enlarged, and with it the tendency 
of the system to increase kept pace. The effect of this soon displayed 
itself in a striking manner, which was followed by very important con- 
sequences, which I shall next explain. 

It so happened that the charters of the Bank of England and the 
late Bank of the United States expired about the same time. As the 
period approached, a feeling of hostility, growing out of the causes just 
explained, which had excited a strong desire in the community, who 
could not participate in the profits of these two great monopolies, to 
throw off their restraint, began to disclose itself against both institutions. 
In Great Britain it terminated in breaking down the exclusive monopoly 
of the Bank of England, and narrowing greatly the specie basis of the 
system, by making the notes of the Bunk of England a legal tender in 
all cases, except between it and its creditors. A sudden and vast in- 
crease of the system, with a great diminution of the metallic basis 
in proportion to banking transactions, followed, which has shocked 
and weakened the stability of the system there. With us the result 
was different. The Bank fell under the hostility of the government. 
All restraint on the system was removed, and banks shot up in 
every direction almost instantly, under the growing impulse which 
I have explained, and which, with the causes I stated when I first 
addressed the Senate on this question, is the cause of the present catas- 
trophe. 

With it commences the fourth era of the system, which we have just 
entered — an era of struggle, and conflict, and changes. The system can 
advance no farther in our country, without great and radical changes. 
It has come to a stand. The conflict between metallic and bank cur- 
rency, which I have shown to be inherent in the system, has, in the 
course of time, and with the progress of events, become so deadly that 
they must separate, and one or the other fall. The degradation of the 
value of the metals, and their almost entire expulsion from their 
appropriate sphere as the medium of exchange and the standard of 
value, have gone so far, under the necessary operation of the system, 

15* 



346 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. fl837. 

that they are no longer sufficient to form the basis of the widely-extend- 
ed system of banking. From the first, the gravitation of the system has 
been in one direction — to dispense with the use of the metals ; and hence 
the descent from a bank of deposit to one of discount; and hence, from 
being the representative, their notes have become the substitute for gold 
and silver ; and hence, finally, its present tendency to a mere paper 
engine, totally separated from the metals. One law has steadily gov- 
erned the system throughout — the enlargement of its profits and influ- 
ence ; and, as a consequence, as metallic currency became insufficient 
for circulation, it has become, in its progress, insufficient for the bas-is of 
banking operations ; so much so, that, if specie payments were restored, 
it would be but nominal, and the system would in a few years, on the 
first adverse current, sink down again into its present helpless condition. 
Nothing can prevent it but great and radical changes, which would 
diminish its profits and influence, so as effectually to arrest that strong 
and deep current which has carried so much of the wealth and capital 
of the community in that direction. Without that, the system, as now 
constituted, must fall ; unless, indeed, it can form an alliance with the 
government, and through it establish its authority by law, and make its 
credit, unconnected with gold and silver, the medium of circulation. If 
the alliance should take place, one of the first movements would be the 
establishment of a great central institution ; or, if that should prove 
impracticable, a combination of a few selected and powerful state banks, 
which, sustained by the government, would crush or subject the weaker, 
to be folloAved by an amendment of the Constitution, or some other 
device, to limit their number and the amount of their capital hereafter. 
This done, the next step would be to confine and consolidate the 
supremacy of the system over the currency of the country, which would 
be in its hands exclusively, and, through it, over the industry, business, 
and politics of the country ; all of which would be wielded to advance 
its profits and powers. 

The system having now arrived at this point, the great and solemn 
duty devolves on us to determine this day what relation this govern- 
ment shall hereafter bear to it. Shall we enter into an alliance with it 
and become the sharers of its fortune and the instrument of its aggran- 
dizement and supremacy ? This is the momentous question on which 
we must now decide. Before we decide, it behooves us to inquire 
whether the system is favorable to the pei manency of our free repub- 
lican institutions, to the industry and business of the country, and, above 



1837.] SEPARATION OF GOVERNMENT FROM BANKS. 347 

all, to our moral and intellectual development, the great object for 
which we were placed here by the Author of our being. 

Can it be doubted what must be the effects of a system whose opera- 
tions have been shown to be so unequal on free institutions, whose foun- 
dation rests on an equality of rights I Can that favor equality which 
gives to one portion of the citizens and the country such decided advan- 
tages over the other, as I have shown it does in my opening remarks ? 
Can that be favorable to liberty which concentrates the money power, 
and places it under the control of a few powerful and wealthy individ- 
uals ? It is the remark of a profound statesman, that the revenue is 
the state ; and, of course, those who control the revenue control the 
state ; and those who can control the money power can control the rev- 
enue, and through it the state, with the property and industry of the 
country, in all its ramifications. Let us pause for a moment, and re- 
Sect on the nature and extent of this tremendous power. 

The currency of a country is to the community what the blood is to 
the human system. It constitutes a small part, but it circulates through 
every portion, and is indispensable" to all the functions of life. The 
currency bears even a smaller proportion to the aggregate capital of 
the community than what the blood does to the solids in the human 
system. What that proportion is, has uot been, and perhaps cannot be, 
accurately ascertained, as it is probably subject to considerable varia- 
tions. It is, however, probably between twenty-five and thirty-five to 
one. I will assume it to be thirty to one. With this assumption let 
us suppose a community whose aggregate capital is $31,000,000 ; its 
currency would be, by supposition, one million, and the residue of its 
capital thirty millions. This being assumed, if the currency be increas- 
ed or decreased, the other portion of the capital remaining the same, 
according to the well-known laws of currency, property would rise or 
fall with the increase or decrease : that is, if the currency be increased 
to two millions, the aggregate value of property would rise to sixty 
millions ; and, if the currency be reduced to $500,000, it would be re- 
duced to fifteen millions. With this law so well established, place the 
money power in the hands of a single individual, or a combination of 
individuals, and they, by expanding or contracting the currency, may 
raise or sink prices at pleasure ; and by purchasing when at the great- 
est depression, and selling at the greatest elevation, may command the 
whole property and industry of the community, and control its fiscal 
operations. The banking system concentrates and places this power in 



348 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1837. 

the hands of those who control it, and its force increases just in propor- 
tion as it dispenses with a metallic basis. Never was an engine invent- 
ed better calculated to place the destiny of the many in the hands of 
the few, or less favorable to that equality and independence which lies 
at the bottom of our free institutions. 

These views have a bearing not less decisive on the next inquiry — 
the effects of the system on the industry and wealth of the country. 
"Whatever may have been its effects in this respect in its early stages, it 
is difficult to imagine anything more mischievous on all of the pursuits 
of life than the frequent and sudden expansions and contractions, to 
which it has now become so habitually subject that it may be consid- 
ered its ordinary condition. None but those in the secret know what to 
do. All are pausing and looking out to ascertain whether an expan- 
sion or contraction is next to follow, and what will be its extent and 
duration ; and if, perchance, an error be committed — if it expands when 
a contraction is expected, or the reverse — the most prudent may lose 
by the miscalculation the fruits of a life of toil and care. The conse- 
quence is, to discourage industry, and to convert the whole community 
into stock-jobbers and speculators. The evil is constantly on the increase, 
and must continue to increase just as the banking system becomes more 
diseased, till it shall become utterly intolerable. 

But its most fatal effects originate in its bearing on the moral and in- 
tellectual development of the community. The great principle of de- 
mand and supply governs the moral and intellectual world no less than 
the business and commercial. If a community be so constituted as to 
cause a demand for high mental attainments, or if its honors and rewards 
are allotted to pursuits that require their development, by creating a 
demand for intelligence, knowledge, wisdom, justice, firmness, courage, 
patriotism, and the like, they are sure to be produced. But if, on the 
contrary, they be allotted to pursuits that require inferior qualities, the 
higher are sure to decay and perish. I object to the banking system, 
because it allots the honors and rewards of the community, in a very 
undue proportion to a pursuit the least of all favorable to the develop- 
ment of the higher mental qualities, intellectual or moral, to the decay 
of the learned professions, and the more noble pursuits of science, litera- 
ture, philosophy, and statesmanship, and the great and more useful pur- 
suits of business and industry. With the vast increase of its profits and 
influence, it is gradually concentrating in itself most of the prizes of life 
— wealth, honor, and influence, to the great disparagement and degrada- 



1837.] SEPARATION OF GOVERNMENT FROM BANKS. 349 

tion of all the liberal, and useful, and generous pursuits of society. The 
rising generation cannot but feel its deadening influence. The youths 
■who crowd our colleges, and behold the road to honor and distinction 
terminating in a banking-house, will feel the spirit of emulation decay 
■within them, and will no longer be pressed forward by generous ardor 
to mount up the rugged steep of science as the road to honor and dis- 
tinction, when, perhaps, the highest point they could attain, in what was 
once the most honorable and influential of all the learned professions, 
would be the place of attorney to a bank. 

Nearly four years since, on the question of the removal of the de- 
posits, although I was opposed to the removal, and in favor of their 
restoration, because I believed it to be illegal, yet, foreseeing what was 
coming, and not wishing there should be any mistake as to my opinion 
on the banking system, I stated here in my place what that opinion 
was. I declared that I had long entertained doubts, if doubts they might 
be called, which were daily increasing, that the system made the worst 
possible distribution of the wealth of the community, and that it Avould 
ultimately be found hostile to the farther advancement of civilization 
and liberty. This declaration was not lightly made ; and I have now 
unfolded the grounds on which it rested, and which subsequent events 
and reflection have matured into a settled conviction. 

With all these consequences before us, shall we restore the broken 
connection ? Shall we again unite the government with the system ? 
And what are the arguments opposed to these high and weighty objec- 
tions ? Instead of meeting them and denying their truth, or opposing 
others of equal weight, a rabble of objections (I can call them by no 
better name) are urged against the separation : one currency for the 
government, and another for the people ; separation of the people from 
the government ; taking care of the government, and not of the people ; 
and a whole fraternity of others of like character. When I first saw 
them advanced in the columns of a newspaper, I could not but smile, 
in thinking how admirably they were suited to an electioneering can- 
vass. They have a certain plausibility about them, which makes them 
troublesome to an opponent simply because they are merely plausible, 
without containing one particle of reason. I little expected to meet them 
in discussion in this place ; but since they have been gravely introduced 
here, respect for the place and company exacts a passing notice, to which, 
of themselves, they are not entitled. 

I begin with that which is first pushed forward, and seems to be most 



350 



JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1837. 



relied on— one currency for the government and another for the peo- 
ple. Is it meant that the government must take in payment of its debts 
whatever the people take in payment of theirs ? If so, it is a very 
broad proposition, and would lead to important consequences. The 
people now receive the notes of non-specie-paying banks. Is it meant 
that the government should also receive them ? They receive in change 
all sorts of paper, issued by we know not whom. Must the government 
also receive them ? They receive the notes of banks issuing notes under 
five, ten, and twenty dollars. Is it intended that the government .-hall 
also permanently receive them? They receive bills of exchange. Shall 
government, too, receive them ? If not, I ask the reason. Is it because 
thev are not suitable for a sound, stable, and uniform currency ? The 
reason is good : but what becomes of the principle, that the government 
ought to take whatever the people take ? But I go farther. It is the 
duty of government to receive nothing in its dues that it has not the 
right to render uniform and stable in its value. We are, by the Con- 
stitution, made the guardian of the money of the country. For this the 
right of coining and regulating the value of coins was given, and we have 
no right whatever to receive or treat anything as money, or the equiva- 
lent of money, the value of which we have no right to regulate. If this 
principle be true, and it cannot be controverted, I ask, What right, has 
Congress to receive and treat the notes of the state banks as money ? 
If the states have the right to incorporate banks, what right has Con- 
gress to regulate them or their issues ? Show me the power in the 
Constitution. If the right be admitted, what are its limitations, and 
how can the right of subjecting thorn to a bankrupt law in that case be 
denied \ If one be admitted, the other follows as a consequence ; and 
yet those who are most indignant against the proposition of subjecting 
the state banks to a bankrupt law, are the. most clamorous to receive 
their notes, not seeing that the one power involves the other. I am 
equally opposed to both, as unconstitutional and inexpedient, "We are 
next told, to separate from the banks is to separate from the people. 
The banks, then, are the people, and the people the banks — united, 
identified, and inseparable; and as the government belongs to the peo- 
ple, it follows, of course, according to this argument, it belongs also to 
the banks, and, of course, is bound to do their biddings. I feel on so 
grave a subject, and in so grave a body, an almost invincible repugnance 
in replying to such arguments : and I shall hasten over the only remain- 
ing one of the fraternity which I shall condescend to notice with all 



1837.1 SEPARATION OF GOVERNMENT FROM BANKS. 351 

possible despfttch. They have no right of admission here, and, if I 
were disposed to jest on so solemn an occasion, I should say they ought 
to be driven from this chamber, under the 47th rule.* The next of 
these formidable objections to the separation from the banks is, that the 
government, in so doing, takes care of itself, and not of the people. 
Why, I had supposed that the government belonged to the people : that 
it was created by them for their own use, to promote their interest, 
and secure their peace and liberty : that, in taking care of itself, it takes 
the most effectual care of the people ; and in refusing all embarrassing, 
entangling, and dangerous alliances with corporations of any de.-cription, 
it was but obeying the great law of self-preservation. But enough ; I 
cannot any longer waste words on such objections. I intend no disre- 
spect to those who have urged them ; yet these, and arguments like 
these, are mainly relied on to countervail the many and formidable ob- 
jections, drawn from the highest considerations that can influence the 
action of governments or individuals, none of which have been refuted 
and many not even denied. 

"The senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster) urged an argument of 
a very different character, but which, in my opinion, he entirely failed 
to establish. He asserted that the ground assumed on this side was an 
entire abandonment of a great constitutional function conferred by the 
Constitution on Congress. To establish this, he laid down the proposi- 
tion, that Congress was bound to take care of the money of the country. 
Agreed ; and with this view the Constitution confers on us the right of 
coining and regulating the value of coins, in order to supply the coun- 
try with money of proper standard and value ; and is it an abandon- 
ment of this right to take care, as this bill does, that it shall not be 
expelled from circulation, as far as the fiscal action of this government 
extends ? But having taken this unquestionable position, the senator 
passed (by what means he did not condescend to explain) from taking 
care of the money of the country to the right of establishing a currency, 
and then to the right of establishing a bank currency, as I understood 
him. On both of these points I leave him in the hands of the senator 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Buchanan), who, in an able and constitutional 
argument, completely demolished, in my judgment, the position assumed 
by the senator from Massachusetts. I rejoice to hear such an argument 



* It is the rule regulating the admission of persons in the lobby of 
the Senate. 



352 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1837. 

from such a quarter. The return of the great state of Pennsylvania to 
the doctrines of rigid construction and state rights sheds a ray of light 
on the thick darkness which has long surrounded us. 

But we are told that there is not gold and silver enough to fill the 
channels of circulation, and that prices would fall. Be it so. What is 
that, compared to the dangers which menace on the opposite side ? But 
are we so certain that there is not a sufficiency of the precious metals 
for the purpose of circulation? Look at France, with her abundant 
supply, with her channels of circulation full to overflowing with coins, 
and her flourishing industry. It is true that our supply is insufficient 
at present. How could it be otherwise ? The banking system has 
degraded and expelled the metals — driven them to foreign lands — 
closed the mines, and converted their products into costly vases, and 
splendid utensils and ornaments, administering to the pride and luxury 
of the opulent, instead of being employed as the standard of value, and 
the instrument of making exchanges, as they were manifestly intended 
mainly to be by an all-wise Providence. Restore them to their proper 
functions, and they will return from their banishment; the mines will 
again be opened, and the gorgeous splendor of wealth will again reas- 
sume the more humble, but useful, form of coins. 

But, Mr. President. I am not driven to such alternatives. I am not 
the enemy, but the friend of credit — not as the substitute, but the 
associate and the assistant of the metals. In that capacity, I hold credit 
to possess, in many respects, a vast superiority over the metals them- 
selves. I object to it in the form which it has assumed in the banking 
system, for reasons that are neither light nor few, and that neither have 
nor can be answered. The question is not whether credit can be dis- 
pensed with, but what is its best possible form — the most stable, the 
least liable to abuse, and the most convenient and cheap. I threw out 
some ideas on this important subject in my opening remarks. I have 
heard nothing to change my opinion. I believe that government credit, 
in the form I suggested, combines all the requisite qualities of a credit 
circulation in the highest degree, and also that government ought not to 
use any other credit but its own in its financial operations. When the 
senator from Massachusetts made his attack on my suggestions, I was 
disappointed. I expected argument, and he gave us denunciation. It 
is often easy to denounce, when it is hard to refute ; and when that 
senator gives denunciations instead of arguments, I conclude that it is 
because the one is at Ins command, and the other not. 



1837.] SEPARATION OF GOVERNMENT FROM BANKS. 353 

We are told the form I suggested is but a repetition of the old Con- 
tinental money — a ghost that is ever conjured up by all who wish to 
give the banks an exclusive monopoly of government credit. The asser- 
tion is not true : there is not the least analogy between them. The one 
was a promise to pay when there was no revenue, and the other a 
promise to receive in the dues of government when there is an abundant 
revenue. 

We are also told that there is no instance of a government paper that 
did not depreciate. In reply, I affirm that there is none, assuming the 
form I propose, that ever did depreciate. Whenever a paper receiva- 
ble in the dues of government had anything like a fair trial, it has 
succeeded. Instance the case of North Carolina, referred to in my 
opening remarks. The draughts of the treasury at this moment, with 
all their encumbrance, are nearly at par with gold and silver; and I 
might add the instance alluded to by the distinguished senator from 
Kentucky, in which he admits that, as soon as the excess of the issues 
of the Commonwealth Bank of Kentucky were reduced to the proper 
point, its notes rose to par. The case of Russia might also be mentioned. 
In 1827, she had a fixed paper circulation, in the form of bank-notes, 
but winch were inconvertible, of upward of $ 120,000,000, estimated in 
the metallic ruble, and which had for years remained without fluctua- 
tion, having nothing to sustain it but that it was received in the dues of 
the government, and that, too, with a revenue of only about $90,000,000 
annually. I speak on the authority of a respectable traveller. Odier 
instances, no doubt, might be added, but it needs no such suppj 
How can a paper depreciate which the government is bound to receive 
in all its payments, and while those to whom payments are to be made 
are under no obligation to receive it ? From its nature, it can only 
circulate when at par with gold and silver ; and if it should depreciate, 
none could be injured but the government. 

But my colleague objects that it would partake of the increase and 
decrease of the revenue, and would be subject to greater expansion ami 
contractions than bank-notes themselves. He assumes that government 
would increase the amount with the increase of the revenue, which is 
not probable, for the aid of its credit would be then less needed ; but 
if it did, what would be the effect ? On the decrease of the revenue, 
its bills would be returned to the treasury, from which, for the want of 
demand, they could not be reissued ; and the excess, instead of hanging 
on the circulation, as in the case of bank-notes, and exposing it to cataa- 



354 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1837. 

trophes like the present, would be gradually and silently withdrawn, 
without shock or injury to any one. It has another and striking ad- 
vantage over bank circulation — in its superior cheapness, as well as 
greater stability and safety. Bank paper is cheap to those Who make 
it, but dear, very dear, to those who use it — fully as much so as gold 
and silver. It is the little cost of its manufacture, and the dear rates 
at which it is furnished to the community, which give the great profit 
to those who have a monopoly of the article. Some idea may be formed 
of the extent of the profit by the splendid palaces which we see under 
the name of banking-houses, and the vast fortunes which have been 
accumulated in this branch of business ; all of which must ultimately 
be derived from the productive powers of the community, and, of 
course, adds so much to die cost of production. On the other hand, the 
credit of government, while it would greatly facilitate its financial ope- 
rations, would cost nothing, or next to nothing, both to it and the people, 
and, of course, would add nothing to the cost of production, which would 
give every branch of our industry, agriculture, commerce, and manu- 
factures, as far as its circulation might extend, great advantages both 
at home and abroad. 

But there remains another and great advantage. In the event of 
war, it would open almost unbounded resources to carry it on, without 
the necessity of resorting to what I am almost disposed to call a fraud 
— public loans. I have already shown that the loans of the Bank of 
England to the government were very little more than loaning back to 
the government its own credit ; and this is more or less true of all loans, 
where the banking system prevails. It was preeminently so in our 
late war. The circulation of the government credit, in the shape of 
bills receivable exclusively with gold and silver in its dues, and the 
sales of public lands, would dispense with the necessity of loans, by 
increasing its bills with the increase of taxes. The increase of taxes, 
and, of course, of revenue and expenditures, would be followed by an 
increased demand for government bills, while the latter would furnish 
the means of paying the taxes, without increasing, in the same degree, 
the pressure on the community. This, with a judicious system of fund- 
ing, at a low rate of interest, would go far to exempt the government 
from the necessity of contracting public loans in the event of war. 

I am not, Mr. President, ignorant, in making these suggestions (I 
wish them to be considered only in that light), to what violent opposi- 
tion every measure of the kind must be exposed. Banks have been so 



1837.] SEPARATION OF GOVERNMENT FROM BANKS. 355 

long in the possession of government credit, that they very naturally 
conclude they have an exclusive right to it, and consider the "withdrawal 
of it, even for the use of the goverment itself, as a positive injury. It 
■was my fortune to take a stand on the side of the government ngainst 
the banks during the most trying period of the late war — the winter 
of 1814 and 1815 — and never in my life was I exposed to more cal- 
umny and abuse — no, not even on this occasion. It was my first lesson 
on the subject. I shall never forget it. I propose to give a very brief 
narrative of the scenes through which I then passed ; not with any 
feeling of egotism, for I trust I am incapable of that, but to illustrate 
the truth of much I have said, and to snatch from oblivion not an un- 
important portion of our financial history. I see the senators from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Webster) and of Alabama (Mr. King), who were 
then members of the House of Representatives, in their places, and 
they can vouch for the correctness of my narrative, as far as the memory 
of transactions so long passed will serve. 

The finances of the country had, at that time, fallen into great con- 
fusion. Mr. Campbell had retired from the head of the treasury, and 
the late Mr. Dallas had succeeded — a man of talents, bold and decisive, 
but inexperienced in the affairs of the department. His first measure 
to restore order, and to furnish the supplies to carry on the war, was 
to recommend a bank of 850,000,000, to be constituted almost exclu- 
sively of the new stocks which had been issued during (he war, to the 
exclusion of the old, which had been issued before. The proposed 
bank was authorized to make loans to the government, and was not 
bound to pay specie during the war, and for three years after its termi- 
nation. 

It so happened that I did not arrive here till some time after the 
commencement of the session, having been detained by an attack of 
billious fever. I had taken a prominent part in the declaration of the 
war, and had every motive and disposition to sustain the administra- 
tion, and to vote every aid to carry on the war. Immediately after my 
arrival, I had a full conversation with Mr. Dallas, at his request. I en- 
tertained very kind feelings towards him, and assured him, after he had 
explained his plan, that I would give it my early and favorable atten- 
tion. At that time I had reflected but little on the subject of banking. 
Many of my political friends expressed a desire that I should take a 
prominent part in favor of the proposed bank. Their extreme anxiety 
aroused my attention, and, being on no committee (they had been ap- 



356 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1837. 

pointed before my arrival), I took up the subject for a full investigation, 
with every disposition to give it my support. I had not proceeded far 
before I was struck with the extraordinary character of the project: a 
bank of 850,009,000, whose capital was to consist almost exclusively 
of government credit in the shape of stock, and not bound to pay its 
debts during the war, and for three years afterward, to furtfish the gov- 
ernment with loans to carry on the war ! I saw at once that the effect 
of the arrangement would be, that government would borrow back its 
own credit, and pay six per cent, per annum for what the} 7 had already 
pail eight or nine. It was impossible for me to give it my support 
under any pressure, however great. I felt the difficulty of my situation, 
not only in opposing the leading measure of the administration at such 
a crisis, but, what was far more responsible, to suggest one of my own, 
that would afford relief to the embarrassed treasury. I cast my eyes 
around, and soon saw that the government should use its own credit 
directly, without the intervention of a bank ; which I proposed to do 
in the form of treasury notes, to be issued in the operations of the gov- 
ernment, and to be funded in the subscription to the stock of the bank. 
Treasury notes were, at that time, below par, even with bank paper. 
The opposition to tbem was so great on the part of the banks, that they 
refused to receive them on deposit, or payment, at par with their notes; 
Avhile the government, on its part, received and paid away notes of the 
banks at par with its own. Such was the influence of the banks, and 
to such degradation did the government, in its weakness, submit. All 
this influence I had to encounter with the entire weight of the adminis- 
tration thrown into the same scale. I hesitated not. I saw the path 
of duty clearly, and determined to tread it, as sharp and rugged as it 
was. When the bill came up, I moved my amendment, the main 
features of which were, that, instead of government stock already issued, 
the capital of the bank should consist of funded treasury notes ; and 
that, instead of a mere paper machine, it should be a specie-paying 
bank, so as to be an ally instead of an opponent, in restoring the cur- 
rency to a sound condition on the return of peace. These were, will 
me, indispensable conditions. I accompanied my amendment with a 
short speech of fifteen or twenty minutes, and so overpowering was the 
force of truth, that, notwithstanding the influence of the administration, 
backed by the money power, and the Committee of Ways and Means, 
which was unanimous, with one exception, as I understood, my amend- 
ment prevailed by a large majority ; but it, in turn, failed — the opposi- 



1837.] SEPARATION OF GOVERNMENT FROM BANKS. 357 

tion, the adherents of the administration, and those who had constitu- 
tional scruples, combined against it. Then followed various, but unsuc- 
cessful, attempts to charter a bank. One was vetoed by the President, 
and another was lost by the casting vote of the speaker (Mr. Cheves). 
After a large portion of the session was thus unsuccessfully consumed, 
a caucus was called, in order to agree on some plan, to which I and the 
few friends who still adhered to me after such hard service, were espe- 
cially invited. We, of course, attended. The plan of compromise was 
unfolded, which approached much nearer to our views, but which was 
still objectionable in some features. I objected, and required farther 
concessions, which were refused, and was told the bill could be passed 
without us ; at which I took up my hat and bade good-night. The bill 
was introduced in the Senate, and speedily passed that body. On the 
second reading, I rose and made a few remarks, in which I entreated 
the house to remember that they were about to vote for the measure 
against their conviction, as had been frequently expressed ; and that, 
in so doing, they acted under a supposed necessity, which had been 
created by those who expected to profit by the measure. I then re- 
minded them of the danger of acting under such pressure ; and I said 
that they were so sensible of the truth of what I uttered, that, if peace 
should arrive before the passage of the bill, it would not receive the 
support of fifteen members. I concluded by saying that I would re- 
serve what I intended to say on the question of the passage of the bill, 
when I would express my opinion at length, and appeal to the country. 
My objections, as yet, had not gone to the people, as nothing that I had 
said had been reported — such was my solicitude to defeat the bill with- 
out extending our divisions beyond the walls of the house, in the then 
critical condition of the country. My object was to arrest the measure, 
and not to weaken confidence in the administration. 

In making the supposition, I had not the slightest anticipation of 
peace. England had been making extensive preparations for the ensu- 
ing campaign, and had made a vigorous attack on New Orleans, but 
had just been repelled ; hut, by a most remarkable coincidence, an 
opportunity (as strange as it may seem) was afforded to test the truth 
of what I have said. Late in the evening of the day I met Mr. Stur- 
ges, then a member of Congress from Connecticut. He said that he 
had some information which he could not withhold from me ; that a 
treaty of peace had been made ; and that it had actually arrived in 
ITew York, and would be here the next day, so that I would have an 






358 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1837. 

opportunity of testing the truth of my prediction. He added, that his 
brother, who had a mercantile house in New York, had forwarded the 
information to him by express, and that he had forwarded the informa- 
tion to connected houses in Southern cities, with direction to purchase 
the great staples in that quarter, and that he wished me to consider 
the information as confidential. I thanked him for the intelligence, and 
promised to keep it to myself. The rumor, however, got out, and the 
next day an attempt was made to pass through the bill; but the house 
was unwilling to act till it could ascertain whether a treaty had been 
made. It arrived in the course of the day, when, on my motion, it was 
laid on the table ; and I had the gratification of receiving the thanks 
of many fur defeating the bill, who, a short time before, were almost 
ready to cut my throat for my persevering opposition to the measure. 
An offer was then made to me to come to my terms, which I refused, 
declaring that I would rise in my demand, and would agree to no bill 
which should not be formed expressly with the view to the speedy 
restoration of specie payments. It was afterward postponed, on the 
conviction that it could not be so modified as to make it acceptable to 
a majority. This was my first lesson on banks. It has made a dura- 
ble impression on my mind. 

My colleague, in the course of his remarks, said he regarded this 
measure as a secret war waged against the banks. I am sure he could 
not intend to attribute such motives to me. I wage no war, secret or 
open, against the existing institutions. They have been created by the 
legislation of the states, and are alone responsible to the states. I 
hold them not answerable for the present state of things, which has 
been brought about under the silent operation of time, without attract- 
ing notice or disclosing its danger. "Whatever legal or constitutional 
rights they possess under their charters ought to be respected ; and, if 
attacked, I would defend them as resolutely as I now oppose the sys- 
tem. Against that I wage, not secret, but open and uncompromising 
hostilities, originating not in opinions recently or hastily formed. I 
have long seen the true character of the system, its tendency and des- 
tiny, and have looked forward for many years, as many of my friends 
know, to the crisis in the midst of which we now are. My ardent 
wish ha? been to effect a gradual change in the banking system, by 
which the crisis might be passed without a shock, if possible ; but I 
have been resolved for many years, that should it arrive in my time, I 
would discharge my duty, however great the difficulty and danger. 



1837.] SEPARATION OF GOVERNMENT FROM BANKS. 359 

I have thus far faithfully performed it, according to the best of my 
abilities, and, with the blessing of God, shall persist, regardless of 
every obstacle, with equal fidelity, to the end. 

He who does not see that the credit system is on the eve of a great 
revolution, has formed a very imperfect conception of the past and an- 
ticipation of the future. What changes it is destined to undergo, and 
what new form it will ultimately assume, are concealed in the womb 
of time, and not given us to foresee. But we may perceive in the pres- 
ent many of the elements of the existing system which must be ex- 
pelled, and others which must enter it in its renewed form. 

In looking at the elements at work, I hold it certain, that in the pro- 
cess there will be a total and final separation of the credit of govern- 
ment and that of individuals, which have been so long blended. The 
good of society, and the interests of both, imperiously demand it, and the 
growing intelligence of the age will enforce it. It is unfair, unjust, 
unequal, contrary to the spirit of free institutions, and corrupting in its 
consequences. How far the credit of government may be used in a 
separate form, with safety and convenience, remains to be seen. To 
the extent of its fiscal action, limited strictly to the function of the col- 
lection and disbursement of its revenue, and in the form I have sug- 
gested, I am of the impression it may be both safely and conveniently 
used, and with great incidental advantages to the whole community. 
Beyond that limit I see no safety, and much danger. 

"What form individual credit will assume after the separation, is still 
more uncertain, but I see clearly that the existing fetters that restrain 
it will be thrown off. The credit of an individual is his property, and 
belongs to him as much as his land and houses, to use. it as he pleases, 
with the single restriction, which is imposed on all our rights, that it ia 
not to be used so as to injure others. What limitations this restriction 
may prescribe, time and experience will show; but, whatever they 
may be, they ought to assume the character of general laws, obligatory 
on all alike, and open to all ; and under the provisions of which all 
may be at liberty to use their credit, jointly or separately, as freely as 
they now use their land and houses, without any preference by special 
acts, in any form or shape, to one over another. Everything like monop- 
oly must ultimately disappear before the process which has begun will 
finally terminate. 

I see, not less clearly, that, in the process, a separation will take place 
between the use of capital and the use of credit. They are wholly dif- 



360 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1837. 

ferent, and, under the growing intelligence of the times, cannot much 
longer remain confounded in their present state of combination. They 
are as distinct as a loan and an endorsement; in fact, the one is but 
giving to another the use of our capital, and the other the use of our 
credit ; and yet, so dissimilar are they, that we daily see the most pru- 
dent individuals lending their credit for nothing, in the form of endorse- 
ment or security, who would not loan the most inconsiderable sum with- 
out interest. But as dissimilar as they are, they are completely con- 
founded in banking operations, which is one of the main sources of the 
profit, and the consequent dangerous flow of capital in that direction. 
A bank discount, instead of a loan, is very little more, as I have shown, than 
a mere exchange of credit — an exchange of the joint credit of the drawer 
and endorser of the note discounted for the credit of the bank in the 
shape of its own note. In the exchange, the bank insures the parties 
to the note discounted, and the community, which is the loser if the bank 
fails, virtually insures the bank ; and yet, by confounding this exchange 
of credit with the use of capital, the bank is permitted to charge an in- 
terest for this exchange, rather greater than an individual is permitted 
to charge for a loan, to the great gain of the bank and loss to the com- 
munity. I say loss, for the community can never enjoy the great and 
full benefit of the credit system, till loans and credit are considered as 
entirely distinct in their nature, and the compensation for the use of 
each be adjusted to their respective nature and character. Nothing 
would give a greater impulse to all the business of society. The su- 
perior cheapness of credit would add incalculably to the productive 
powers of the community, when the immense gains which are now made 
by confounding them shall come in aid of production. 

Whatever other changes the credit system is destined to undergo, 
these are certainly some which it must; but when, and how the revolu- 
tion will end — whether it is destined to be sudden and convulsive, or 
gradual and free from shock, time alone can disclose. Much will depend 
on the decision of the present question, and the course which the advocates 
of the sysU m will pursue. If the separation takes place, and is acquiesced 
in by those interested in the system, the prospect will be, that it will 
gradually and quietly run down, without shock or convulsions, which is 
my sincere prayer; but if not — if the reverse shall be insisted on, and, 
above all, if it should be effected through a great political struggle (it 
can only be so effected), the revolution would be violent and convulsive. 
A great and thorough change must take place. It is wholly unavoida- 



1837.] SEVERITY OF THE PRESSURE. 361 

ble. The public attention begins to be roused throughout the civilized 
world to this all absorbing subject. There is nothing left to be controll- 
ed but the mode and manner, and it is better for all that it should be 
gradual and quiet than the reverse. All the rest is destiny. 

I have now, Mr. President, said what I intended, without reserve or 
disguise. In taking the stand I have, I change no relation, personal or 
political, nor alter any opinion I have heretofore expressed or entertained. 
I desire nothing from the government or the people. My only am- 
bition is to do my duty, and shall follow whatever that may lead, re- 
gardless alike of attachments or antipathies, personal or political. I 
know full well the responsibility I have assumed. I see clearly the 
magnitude and the hazard of the crisis, and the danger of confiding the 
execution of measures in which I take so deep a responsibility, to those 
in whom I have no reason to have any special confidence. But all thi3 
deters me not when I believe that the permanent interest of the coun- 
try is involved. My course is fixed. I go forward. If the adminis- 
tration recommend what I approve on this great question, I will cheer- 
fully give my support ; if not, I shall oppose ; but, in opposing, I shall 
feel bound to suggest what I believe to be the proper measure, and 
which I shall be ready to back, be the responsibility what it may, look- 
ing only to the country, and not stopping to estimate whether the bene- 
fit shall inure either to the administration or the opposition. 

The time to which Mr. Calhoun had looked forward 
with so many ardent hopes and eager expectations had 
at length arrived. The day of deliverance — of deliver- 
ance from the banking system — was at hand. But it 
dawned in the midst of sorrow and gloom. He had 
often predicted the commercial revulsion experienced 
in 1837, yet the severity of the blow exceeded his ex- 
pectations. The shock convulsed the whole nation. 
Every commercial interest staggered, or was prostrated 
before it. Private individuals, banks and chartered 
companies, and many of the state governments even, 
were brought to the verge or plunged into the abyss of 
bankruptcy. A fictitious credit system had been built 

16 



362 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1837. 

upon the surplus revenue, which, in the vaults of the 
deposit banks, had served as the basis of immense loans 
and consequent indebtedness. The legitimate results 
of the high tariff policy were now witnessed. The time 
for payment came — it could not be evaded or postponed 
— and the frail fabric toppled down upon the heads of 
those who had reared it. The stimulus had been far 
too powerful, and the reaction was terrible to witness. 

But the evil was not without good. The effect of the 
resolution of 1816 and the deposit act, by which the 
notes of none but specie-paying banks could be received 
in payment of government dues, was promptly to sever 
the connection between the government and the banks, 
because the latter had suspended specie payments 
throughout the country. Mr. Calhoun had never re- 
garded the connection with favor, and he w T as the last 
man to renew it when it had once been broken off, at 
least when the country was at peace, and abounded in 
so many of the elements of prosperity. 

The general government itself did not escape unscath- 
ed. So far as its interests were affected, the distribu- 
tion of the revenue among the states operated unfavor- 
ably, both for the reason, that so large an amount of 
the basis of the currency being withdrawn, individual 
debtors of the United States dependent upon it were 
rendered bankrupt, and because, if the surplus had been 
expended in the purchase of state stocks, this conse- 
quence would not have been so immediate, and the 
stocks might have been used to sustain the government. 
But the surplus was no longer in the treasury, and resort 
was therefore had to treasury notes, and ultimately to 
loans. Yet this is an argument rather as to the time 



1837.] INDEPENDENT TREASURY. 363 

than as to the effect, of certain causes, for that was sure 
to come sooner or later, whatever policy had been 
adopted. 

To return to the events of the extra session in 1837 : 
On the 14th of September, Mr. Wright of New York, 
as the chairman of the committee on finance, reported 
a bill, as recommended by Mr. Van Buren, providing 
for the divorce of bank and state. In its original shape, 
the bill contained no provision whatsoever in regard to 
the character of the funds to be thereafter received by 
government. Mr. Calhoun was not hostile to paper 
money, as all his speeches on this question most con- 
clusively show ; he thought the use of credit in this way 
to be often highly desirable, not to say necessary, in 

O •) 90 •> 

business transactions between individuals. But he was 
totally opposed to the reception of paper money by the 
government, unless it were of its own creation, such as 
treasury notes or something of a similar character. 
When the bill of Mr. Wright came before the Senate, 
he expressed his fears that there existed a design on the 
part of the administration to restore the connection with 
the banks by receiving their money. Mr. Wright un- 
equivocally disavowed this intention, and Mr. Calhoun 
then prepared an amendment, at the suggestion of the 
friends of the administration, providing for the collec- 
tion of the public dues in specie — the only constitutional 
currency." In favor of this amendment, his second 
speech, heretofore given, advocating an entire separa- 
tion of the government from the banks, was delivered. 
Two counter propositions were brought forward ; the 
reincorporation of a national bank, by the ultra Whigs ; 

* " Madison Paper?," (Debates in the Convention) pp. 378, 435. 



364 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1838. 

and a system of special deposits with the state banks, 
by a small faction which had cleaved off from the Re- 
publican or Democratic party and followed the lead of 
Mr. Rives, of Virginia. The bank project was lost by 
a vote of more than two to one, Mr. Calhoun voting 
with the majority against it ; and Mr. Rives' plan was 
defeated by a vote of twenty-six to twenty-two. The 
Independent Treasury bill then passed the Senate with 
the vote of Mr. Calhoun, but failed in the House. 

At the regular session commencing in December, the 
Sub-Treasury plan, as it was termed by its opponents, 
was again the prominent subject of debate and con- 
sideration. Mr. Wright once more reported a bill 
more perfect in its details than that presented at the 
extra session, and containing the specie clause. This 
bill was framed expressly with a view r to meet Mr. 
Calhoun's wishes, and he gave it his cordial support. 
He took a prominent part in the debate, and advocated 
the passage of the bill in a speech delivered on the 15th 
of February, 1838, presenting an able and lucid array 
of facts and arguments in its favor ; and he subse- 
quently defended it against the attacks of Mr. Webster 
and Mr. Clay, in two speeches made in reply to those 
senators. Mr. Rives' plan was now supported by the 
united opposition, consisting of Whigs and Conserva- 
tives, for the reason that all hope of securing the incor- 
poration of a national bank had been abandoned ; but 
the attempt to substitute it for Mr. Wright's bill, was 
successfully resisted. Public opinion, however, was 
not yet arrayed on the side of this great measure ; on 
the contrary, the misrepresentations as to its character 
industriously made by the friends of the banking and 



1838.] ATTACKS UPON HIM. 365 

stock interests, had produced a strong feeling against it 
even among a considerable portion of the frientls of the 
administration who afterward approved it. Several of 
the state legislatures had instructed their senators to 
oppose the specie clause, and it was finally stricken out 
against the earnest remonstrances of Mr. Calhoun. 
He contended that the bill would prove a complete 
abortion without this clause, and presented this position 
with so much ability that no one attempted to confute 
his arguments, which were subsequently approved by 
the whole Republican party. 

This bill failed to become a law, and at the ensuing 
session a similar bill w r as also defeated. But in Decem- 
ber, 1839, a new House of Representatives came 
together, and there had been several changes in the 
Senate. The Independent Treasury was this time 
brought forward under more favorable auspices, and a 
bill again passed the Senate containing the specie clause, 
with the vote of Mr. Calhoun. It was sustained in the 
House, and on the 4th day of July, 1840, w T as signed by 
the President. 

Mr. Calhoun's course with reference to the separation 
of the government from the banks, though perfectly 
consistent with his previous life and with his w r ell- 
known and often expressed views upon the subject of 
the currency, did not escape the criticism and censure 
of the Whig party. In his speech in 1834, on Mr. 
Webster's motion to renew the charter of the United 
States Bank, he emphatically declared, that he was the 
partisan of no class — nor of either political party, " I 
am neither of the opposition nor administration," said 
he, " If I act with the former in any instance, it is 



366 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1838. 

because I approve of their course on the particular 
occasion, and I shall always be happy to act with them 
when I do approve. If I oppose the administration, if 
I desire to see power change hands, it is because I dis- 
approve of the general course of those in authority." 

Yet in the face of this declaration, and of the fact 
that he had never attended the political caucuses or 
meetings of the opposition, he was charged with having 
gone over to the enemy — to the administration party. 
So long as these attacks were confined to the public 
press he took no notice of them, but when Mr. Clay 
repeated the charge on the floor of the Senate, and 
attempted to chastise him by word of mouth, Mr. Cal- 
houn felt bound to notice it, and in his reply to the 
senator from Kentucky, before alluded to, he gave 
utterance to his feelings in a strain of indignant elo- 
quence never surpassed in that chamber. 

" Mr. Calhoun," said a writer in the Democratic 
Review* alluding to this debate, "has evidentlv taken 
Demosthenes for his model as a speaker — or rather, I 
suppose, he has studied, while young, his orations with 
great admiration, until they produced a decided im- 
pression upon his mind. His recent speech in defence 
of himself against the attacks of Mr. Clay, is precisely 
on the plan of the famous oration De Corona, delivered 
by the great Athenian, in vindication of himself from 
the elaborate and artful attacks of iEschines. While 
the one says : ' Athenians ! to you I appeal, my judges 
and my witnesses !' — the other says : ' In proof of this, 
I appeal to you, senators, my witnesses and my judges 
on this occasion !' iEschines accused Demosthenes of 

* April No., 1838. 



1838.] REPLY TO MR. CLAY. 367 

having received a bribe from Philip, and the latter re- 
torted by saying that the other had accused him of 
doing what he himself had notoriously done. Mr. Clay 
says, that Mr. Calhoun had gone over, and he left to 
time to disclose his motive. Mr. Calhoun retorts : 
" Leave it to time to disclose my motive for going over ! 
I, who have changed no opinion, abandoned no princi- 
ple, and deserted no party ; I, who have stood still and 
maintained my ground against every difficulty, to be 
told that it is left to time to disclose my motive ! The 
imputation sinks to the earth, with the groundless charge 
on which it rests. I stamp it, with scorn, in the dust. 
I pick up the dart, which fell harmless at my feet. I 
hurl it back. What the senator charges on me unjustly, 
he has actually done. He went over on a memorable 
occasion,* and did not leave it to time to disclose his 
motive.' " 

Other charges made by Mr. Clay were repelled in 

similar language by Mr. Calhoun ; and his conduct was 

justified, his consistency maintained, and his political 

position explained, with great clearness and ability. 

He said that Mr. Clay had admitted he once bore a 

character for stern fidelity, but insinuated that it had 

now been forfeited. He replied, that if he were to 

select an instance on which, above all others, to rest 

his claim to such a character, it would be his course at 

this crisis. A powerful party taking advantage of the 

pecuniary embarrassments of the country to displace 

the administration would be opposed to him, and he 

* In allusion to the course of Mr. Clay, in the winter of 1825, with 
reference to the election of Mr. Adams, and his acceptance of the office 
of Secretary" of State. 



368 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1838. 

should also incur the displeasure of the whole banking 
interest, with the exception of some of the southern 
banks. Many State Rights men, too, for whom he 
cherished a brother's love, would not go with him. 
" But I saw before me," he said, "the path of duty ; and, 
though rugged and hedged on all sides with these and 
many other difficulties, I did not hesitate a moment to 
take it. Yes, alone, as the senator sneeringly says. 
After I had made up my mind as to my course, in a 
conversation with a friend about the responsibility 
I would assume, he remarked that my own state might 
desert me. I replied that it was not impossible ; but 
the result has proved that I under-estimated the intelli- 
gence and patriotism of my virtuous and noble state. I 
ask her pardon for the distrust implied in my answer ; 
but I ask, with assurance it will be granted, on the 
grounds I shall put it — that, in being prepared to sacri- 
fice her confidence, as dear to me as light and life, 
rather than disobey, on this great question, the dictates 
of my judgment and conscience, I proved myself not 
unworthy of being her representative. 

" But if the senator, in attributing to me stern fidelity, 
meant, not devotion to principle, but to party, and espe- 
cially the party of which he is so prominent a member, 
my answer is, that I never belonged to his party, nor 
owed it any fidelity; and, of course, could forfeit in ref- 
erence to it, no character for fidelitv. It is true, we act- 
ed in concert against what we believed to be the usurpa- 
tions of the executive; and it is true that, during the time, 
I saw much to esteem in those with whom I acted, and 
contracted friendly relations with many, which I shall 
not be the first to forget. It is also true that a common 



1838.] REPLY TO MR. CLAY. 369 

party designation was applied to the opposition in the 
aggregate, not, however, with my approbation ; but it 
is no less true that it was universally known that it 
consisted of two distinct parties, dissimilar in principle 
and policy, except in relation to the object for which 
they had united : the National Republican party, and 
the portion of the State Rights party which had sepa- 
rated from the administration, on the ground that it had 
departed from the true principles of the original party. 
That I belonged exclusively to that detached portion, 
and to neither the opposition nor administration party, 
I prove by my explicit declaration, contained in one 
of the extracts read from my speech on the currency 
in 1834. That the party generally, and the state which 
I represent in part, stood aloof from both of the parties, 
may be established from the fact that they refused to 
mingle in the party and political contests of the day. 
My state withheld her electoral vote in two successive 
presidential elections; and, rather than bestow it on 
either the senator from Kentucky, or the distinguished 
"citizen whom he opposed, in the first of those elections, 
she threw her vote on a patriotic citizen of Virginia, 
since deceased, of her own politics, but who was not a 
candidate; and, in the last, she refused to give it to the 
worthy senator from Tennessee near me (Judge White), 
though his principles and views of policy approached 
so much nearer to hers than that of the party to which 
the senator from Kentucky belongs. But, suppose the 
fact was otherwise, and that the two parties had blended 
so as to form one, and that I owed to the united party 
as much fidelity as I do to that to which I exclusively 
belonged ; even on that supposition, no conception of 

16* 



370 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1838. 

party fidelity could have controlled my course on the 
present occasion. I am not among those who pay no 
regard to party obligations; on the contrary, I place 
fidelity to party among the political virtues, but I assign 
to it a limited sphere. I confine it to matters of detail 
and arrangement, and to minor questions of policy. 
Beyond that, on all questions involving principles, or 
measures calculated to affect materially the permanent 
interests of the country, I look only to God and country. 
"And here, Mr. President, I avail myself of the op- 
portunity to declare my present political position, so 
that there may be no mistake hereafter. I belong to 
the old Republican State Rights party of 1798. To 
that, and that alone, I owe fidelity, and by that I shall 
stand through every change, arid in spite of every dif- 
ficulty. Its creed is to be found in the Kentucky Res- 
olutions, and Virginia Resolutions and Report ; and 
its policy is to confine the action of this government 
within the narrowest limits compatible with the peace 
and security of these states, and the objects for which 
the Union was expressly formed. I, as one of the 
party, shall support all who support its principles and 
policy, and oppose all who oppose them. I have given, 
and shall continue to give, the administration a hearty 
and sincere support on the great question now under 
discussion ; because I regard it as in strict conformity 
to our creed and policy, and shall do everything in my 
power to sustain them under the great responsibility 
which they have assumed. But let me tell those who 
are more interested in sustaining them than myself, 
that the danger which threatens them lies not here, but 
in another quarter. This measure will tend to up- 



1838.] - REPLY TO MR. CLAY. S71 

hold them, if they stand fast and adhere to it with 
fidelity. But, if they wish to know where the danger 
is, let them look to the fiscal department of the govern- 
ment. I said, years ago, that w r e were committing an 
error the reverse of the great and dangerous one that 
was committed in 1828, and to which we owe our 
present difficulties, and all we have since experienced. 
Then, we raised the revenue greatly, when the expend- 
itures were about to be reduced by the discharge of 
the public debt ; and now, we have doubled the dis- 
bursements, when the revenue is rapidly decreasing : 
an error which, although probably not so fatal to the 
country, will prove, if immediate and vigorous measures 
be not adopted, far more so to those in power. The 
country will not, and ought not, to bear the creation 
of a new debt beyond what may be temporarily neces- 
sary to meet the present embarrassment; and any at- 
tempt to increase the duties must and ought to prove 
fatal to those who may make it, so long as the expendi- 
tures may, by economy and accountability, be brought 
within the limits of the revenue. 

" But the senator did not confine his attack to my 
conduct and motives in reference to the present ques- 
tion. In his eagerness to weaken the cause I support, 
by destroying confidence in me, he made an indiscrimi- 
nate attack on my intellectual faculties, which he char- 
acterized as metaphysical, eccentric, too much of genius, 
and too little of common sense, and, of course, want- 
ing a sound and practical judgment. 

"Mr. President, according to my opinion, there is 
nothing of which those who are endowed with superior 
mental faculties ought to be more cautious than to re- 



372 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1838. 

proach those with their deficiency to whom Providence 
has been less liberal. The faculties of our mind are 
the immediate gift of our Creator, for which we are no 
farther responsible than for their proper cultivation, 
according to our opportunities, and their proper appli- 
cation to control and regulate our actions. Thus 
thinking, I trust I shall be the last to assume superior- 
ity on my part, or reproach any one with inferiority 
on his ; but those who do not regard the rule when ap- 
plied to others, cannot expect it to be observed when 
applied to themselves. The critic must expect to be 
criticized, and he who points out the faults of others, 
to have his own pointed out. 

" I cannot retort on the senator the charge of being 
metaphysical. I cannot accuse him of possessing the 
powers of analysis and generalization, those higher 
faculties of the mind (called metaphysical by those 
who do not possess them) which decompose and resolve 
into their elements the complex masses of ideas that 
exist in the world of mind, as chemistry does the bodies 
that surround us in the material world ; and without 
which those deep and hidden causes which are in con- 
stant action, and producing such mighty changes in the 
condition of society, would operate unseen and unde- 
tected. The absence of these higher qualities of mind 
is conspicuous throughout the whole course of the 
senator's public life. To this it may be traced that he 
prefers the specious to the solid, and the plausible to 
the true. To the same cause, combined with an ardent 
temperament, it is owing that we ever find him mount- 
ed on some popular and favorite measure, which he 
whips along, cheered by the shouts of the multitude, 



1838.] REPLY TO MR. CLAY. 373 

and never dismounts till he has rode it down. Thus, 
at one time we find him mounted on the protective 
system, which he rode down ; at another, on internal 
improvement ; and now he is mounted on a bank, 
which will surely share the same fate, unless those who 
are immediately interested shall stop him in his head- 
long career. It is the fault of his mind to seize on a 
few prominent and striking advantages, and to pursue 
them eagerly, without looking to consequences. Thus, 
in the case of the protective system, he was struck 
with the advantages of manufactures ; and, believing 
that high duties was the proper mode of protecting 
them, he pushed forward the system, without seeing 
that he w T as enriching one portion of the country at 
the expense of the other ; corrupting the one and 
alienating the other; and, finally, dividing the com- 
munity into two great hostile interests, which termi- 
nated in the overthrow of the system itself. So. now, 
he looks only to a.uniform currency, and a bank as a 
means of securing it, without once reflecting how far 
the banking system has progressed, and the difficulties 
that impede its farther progress ; that banking and 
politics are running together, to their mutual destruc- 
tion ; and that the only possible mode of saving his 
favorite system is to separate it from the government. 

" To the defects of understanding which the senator 
attributes to me, I make no reply. It is for others, and 
not me, to determine the portion of understanding 
which it has pleased the Author of my being to bestow 
on me. It is, however, fortunate for me, that the 
standard by which I shall be judged is not the false, 
prejudiced, and, as I have shown, unfounded opinion 



374 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1838. 

which the senator has expressed, but my acts. They 
furnish materials, neither few nor scant, to form a just 
estimate of my mental faculties. I have now been 
more than twentv-six years continuously in the service 

ml mf J 

of this government, in various stations, and have taken 
part in almost all the great questions which have agi- 
tated this country during this long and important period. 
Throughout the whole I have never followed events, 
but have taken my stand in advance, openly and freely, 
avowing my opinions on all questions, and leaving it to 
time and experience to condemn or approve my course. 
Thus acting, I have often, and on great questions, sepa- 
rated from those with whom I usuallv acted ; and if I 
am really so defective in sound and practical judg- 
ment as the senator represents, the proof, if to be 
found anywhere, must be found in such instances, or 
where I have acted on my sole responsibility. Now, I 
ask, In which of the many instances of the kind is such 
proof to be found ? It is not my intention to call to 
the recollection of the Senate all such ; but that you, 
senators, may judge for yourselves, it is due, in justice 
to myself, that I should suggest a few of the most 
prominent, which at the time were regarded as the 
senator now considers the present; and then, as now, 
because, where duty is involved, I would not submit to 
party trammels. 

"' I go back to the commencement of my public life, 
the war session, as it was usually called, of 1812, when 
I first took my seat in the other house, a young man 
without experience to guide me, and I shall select, as 
the first instance, the navy. At that time, the adminis- 
tration and the party to which I was strongly attached 



1838.] REPLY TO MR. CLAY. 375 

were decidedly opposed to this important arm of ser- 
vice. It was considered anti-republican to support it ; 
but acting with my then distinguished colleague, Mr. 
Cheves, who led the way, I did not hesitate to give it 
my hearty support, regardless of party ties. Does this 
instance sustain the charge of the senator ? 

" The next I shall select is the restrictive system of 
that day ; the Embargo, the Non-importation and Non- 
intercourse Acts. This, too, was a party measure, 
which had been long and warmly contested, and, of 
course, the lines of party well drawn. Young and in- 
experienced as I was, I saw its defects, and resolutely 
opposed it almost alone of my party. The second or 
third speech I made, after I took my seat, was in open 
denunciation of the system ; and I may refer to the 
grounds I then assumed, the truth of which have been 
confirmed by time and experience, with pride and con- 
fidence. This will scarcely be selected by the senator 
to make good his charge. 

"I pass over other instances, and come to Mr. Dal- 
las's bank of 1814-15. That, too, was a party meas- 
ure. Banking was then comparatively but little un- 
derstood, and it may seem astonishing, at this time, that 
such a project should ever have received any counte- 
nance or support. It proposed to create a bank of 
$50,000,000, to consist almost entirely of what was 
called then the war stocks ; that is, the public debt cre- 
ated in carrying on the then war. It was provided 
that the bank should not pay specie during the war, 
and for three years after its termination, for carrying 
on which it was to lend the government the funds. In 
plain language, the government was to borrow back its 



376 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1838. 

own credit from the bank, and pay to the institution 
six per cent, for its use. I had scarcely ever before 
seriously thought of banks or banking, but I clearly 
saw through the operation, and the danger to the gov- 
ernment and country ; and, regardless of party ties 
or denunciations, I opposed and defeated it in the man- 
ner I explained at the extra session. I then subjected 
myself to the very charge which the senator now 
makes; but time has done me justice, as it will in the 
present instance. 

" Passing the intervening instances, I come down to 
my administration of the war department, where I 
acted on my own judgment and responsibility. It is 
known to all that the department, at the time, was per- 
fectly .disorganized, with not much less than $50,000,000 
of outstanding and unsettled accounts, and the greatest 
confusion in every branch of service. Though with- 
out experience, I prepared, shortly after I went in, the 
bill for its organization, and on its passage I drew T up 
the body of rules for carrying the act into execution, 
both of which remain substantially unchanged to this 
day. After reducing the outstanding accounts to a few 
millions, and introducing; order and accountabilitv in 
every branch of service, and bringing down the expendi- 
ture of the army from four to two and a half millions an- 
nually, without subtracting a single comfort from either 
officer or soldier, I left the department in a condition 
that might w r ell be compared to the best in any country. 
If I am. deficient in the qualities which the senator at- 
tributes to me, here in this mass of details and business 
it ought to be discovered. Will he look to this to 
make good his charge ? 



1838.] REPLY TO MR. CLAY. 377 

" From the war department I was transferred to the 
chair which you now occupy. How I acquitted my- 
self in the discharge of its duties, I leave it to the body 
to decide, without adding a word. The station, from 
its leisure, gave me a good opportunity to study the 
genius of the prominent measure of the day, called 
then the American System, of which I profited. I 
soon perceived where its errors lay, and how it would 
operate. I clearly saw its desolating effects in one sec- 
tion, and corrupting influence in the other; and when 
I saw that it could not be arrested here, I fell back on 
my own state, and a blow was given to a system des- 
tined to destroy our institutions, if not overthrown, 
which brought it to the ground. This brings me down 
to the present time, and where passions and prejudices 
are yet too strong to make an appeal with any pros- 
pect of a fair and impartial verdict. I then transfer 
this, and all my subsequent acts, including the present, 
to the tribunal of posterity, with a perfect confidence 
that nothing will be found, in what I have said or done, 
to impeach my integrity or understanding. 

" I have now, senators, repelled the attacks on me. I 
have settled and cancelled the debt between me and 
my accuser. I have not sought this controversy, nor 
have I shunned it when forced on me. I have acted 
on the defensive, and if it is to continue, which rests 
with the senator, I shall throughout continue so to act. 
I know too well the advantage of my position to sur- 
render it. The senator commenced the controversy, 
and it is but right that he should be responsible for the 
direction it shall hereafter take. Be his determination 
what it may, I stand prepared to meet him," 



378 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1838. 

Mr. Webster also attacked Mr. Calhoun, and charged 
him with deserting the opposition when victory was 
within their reach, and his " cooperation only was wanted 
to prostrate forever those in power.'*' These few words, 
said Mr. Calhoun in his reply, contained the whole 
secret of the denunciations levelled against him ; and 
as Mr. Webster declared that he should soon move for 
a renewal of the protective policy, he pointed to this 
declaration as furnishing, if anything had been needed, 
a complete justification for his course. But he would 
not rest the matter here. He insisted, that Mr. Webster 
and himself entertained irreconcilable opinions in rela- 
tion to the character of the government, its principles, 
and its true policy ; and they were in their appropriate 
spheres when arrayed in open hostility. 

A friend who was present during the delivery of Mr. 
Calhoun's speech in reply to Mr. Clay, says that, 
although he has heard many public speakers, he never 
witnessed such intense earnestness, such a display of 
impassioned eloquence, as characterized this great effort. 
The keen fulgent eyes of the speaker shot lightnings at 
every glance, his hair stood on end, large drops of sweat 
rested on his brow, and everv feature and muscle were 
alive with animation. And while this burning flood of 
indignation was rolling in a deluge from his lips, the 
audience were so completely enchained that perfect 
silence was preserved, and a pin might have been heard 
to drop in any part of the chamber; and when he de- 
clared, •with a gesture suited to his words, that he hurl- 
ed back the dart which had been thrown against him, 
the eyes of all were involuntarily turned to witness the 
effect of the blow. 



CHAPTER XI. 

Resolutions on the Subject of Abolitionism — Opinions of Mr. Calhoun — 
Assumption of State Debts — Bankrupt Bill — Case of the Enterprise 
— Support of Mr. Van Bnren — Election of Harrison and Tyler — The 
Public Lands — Distribution — The Bank Bills — Defence of the Veto 
Power— Mr. Clay's Resolutions— Tariff of 1812— Ashburton Treaty. 

Among the intellectual champions of the Senate, Mr. 
Calhoun now stood, like Gabriel, confessedly preemi- 
nent. A world-wide reputation was his ; no stranger 
entered the chamber without seeking him out as one of 
the first among his compeers ; and the warmest admirers 
of Clav and Webster willingly conceded that he was 
second only to the objects of their special praise. He 
attracted the attention, alike of friend and foe — he was 
" the observed of all observers." 

In debate he was felt to be powerful, and none dared 
enter the lists against him single-handed, unless clad in 
armor of mailed proof. It cannot be said that he 
never found his match ; but one thing is true — he never 
owned a superior. 

The abolitionists had continued to increase in num- 
bers and in influence in the northern states, and one or 
both parties in that section often coquetted with them 
at the state elections, in order to secure the success of 
their candidates, and not, in a majority of cases per- 
haps, with the view of ultimately rendering any assist- 



380 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1838. 

ance in the main object which they had in view. But 
they were thereby emboldened to make still greater 
efforts ; they began to feel themselves of some conse- 
quence, and to assume the airs natural to those in the 
position which they occupied — that of a third party, 
holding, in many of the states, the balance of power. 
Mr. Calhoun earnestly desired that the Republican party 
should commit themselves decidedly against the aboli- 
tionists, and with that view he offered the following 
resolutions at the session of 1837-8 : — 

RESOLUTIONS ON ABOLITIONISM. 

" Resolved, That, in the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the 
states adopting the same acted severally as free, independent, and sove- 
reign states ; and that each, for itself, by its own voluntary assent, en- 
tered the Union with the view to its increased security against all dan- 
gers, domestic as well as foreign, and the more perfect and secure en- 
joyment of its advantages, natural, political, and social. 

" Resolved, That, in delegating a portion of their powers to be exer- 
cised by the Federal Government, the states retained severally the ex- 
clusive and sole right over their own domestic institutions and police, 
and are alone responsible for fliem ; and that any intermeddling of any 
one or more states, or a combination of their citizens, with the domestic 
institutions and police of the others, on any ground or under any pre- 
text whatever, political, moral, or religious, with a view to their altera- 
tion or subversion, is an assumption of superiority not warranted by the 
Constitution, insulting to the states interfered with : tending to endanger 
their domestic peace and tranquillity, subversive of the objects for 
which the Constitution was formed, and, by necessary consequence 
tending to weaken and destroy the Union itself. 

" Resolved, That this Government was instituted and adopted by the 
several states of this Union as a common agent, in order to cany into 
effect the powers which they had delegated by the Constitution for their 
mutual security and prosperity ; and that, in fulfilment of this high and 
sacred trust, this Government is bound so to exercise its powers as to 
give, as far as may be practicable, increased stability and security to the 



1838.] RESOLUTIONS ON ABOLITIONISM. 381 

domestic institutions of the states that compose the Union ; and that it 
is the solemn duty of the Government to resist ail attempts by one 
portion of the Union to use it as an instrument to attack the domestic 
institutions of another, or to weaken or destroy such institutions, instead 
of strengthening and upholding them, as it is in duty bound to do. 

" Resolved, That domestic slavery, as it exists in the Southern and 
Western States of this Union, composes an important part of their 
domestic institutions, inherited from their ancestors, and existing at the 
adoption of the Constitution, by vrhich it is recognized as constituting an 
essential element in the distribution of its powers among the states ; and 
that no change of opinion or feeling on the part of the other states of 
the Union in relation to it can justify them or their citizens in open and 
systematic attacks thereon, with the view to its overthrow ; and that all 
such attacks are in manifest violation of the mutual and solemn pledge 
to protect and defend each other, given by the states respectively on 
entering into the Constitutional compact which formed the Union, and, 
as such, i9 a manifest breach of faith, and a violation of the most solemn 
obligations, moral and religious. 

" Resolved, That the intermeddling of any state or states, or their 
citizens, to abolish slavery in this district, or any of the territories, on 
the ground or under the pretext that it is immoral or sinful, or the pas- 
sage of any act or measure of Congress with that view, would be a direct 
and dangerous attack on the institutions of all the slaveholding states. 

" Resolved, That the union of these states rests on an equality of 
rights and advantages among its members ; and that whatever destroys 
that equality tends to destroy the Union itself; aud that it is the solemn 
duty of all, and more especially of this body, which represents the states 
in their corporate capacity, to resist all attempts to discriminate be- 
tween the states in extending the benefits of the Government to the 
several portions of the Union ; and that to refuse to extend to the 
Southern and Western States any advantage which would tend to 
strengthen or render them more secure, or increase their limits or popu- 
lation by the annexation of new territory or states, on the assumption or 
under the pretext that the institution of slavery, as it exists among 
them, is immoral or sinful, or otherwise obnoxious, would be contrary to 
that equality of rights and advantages which the Constitution was in- 
tended to secure alike to all the members of the Union, and would, in 
effect, disfranchise the slaveholding states, withholding them from the 
advantages, while it subjected them to the burdens, of the Government." 



382 



JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1838. 



Mr. Calhoun defended his resolutions in a sort of 
running debate, during which Reexamined the relative 
rights, obligations, and duties, of the governments and 
the citizens of the slaveholding and non-slaveholding 
states. With some slight modifications, all the resolu- 
tions passed the Senate, except the last, which had ref- 
erence obviously to the admission of Florida, opposi- 
tion to which was already threatened, and to the con- 
templated acquisition of Texas. 

While upon this subject, it will not be amiss to state, 
once for all, what were the opinions of Mr. Calhoun on 
the subject of slavery. In his view, it ought not to be 
considered, as it exists in the United States, in the ab- 
stract ; but rather as a political institution, existing prior 
to the formation of the government and expressly recog- 
nized in the Constitution.* The framers of that instru- 
ment regarded slaves as property, and admitted the 
right of ownership in them.f The institution being 
thus acknowledged, he contended that the faith of all 
the states was pledged against any interference with it 
in the states in which it existed ; and that in the District 
of Columbia, and in the territories from which slavery 
had not been excluded by the Missouri Compromise, 
being the common property of all the states, the owner 
of slaves enjoyed the same rights and was entitled to 
the same protection, if he chose to emigrate thither, or 
if already a resident, as if he were in one of the slave 
states — in other words, that upon common soil, his right 
of property should be respected. Any interference 
with it, therefore, direct or indirect, immediate or remote, 

* Article i., Section 2 ; Article iv., Section 2. 

f "Madison Papers," (Debates in the Convention) pp. 181. 391. 



1838.] OPINIONS ON SLAVERY. 383 

he felt bound to oppose, and did oppose to the very close 
of his life. 

He held, too, that it was desirable to continue the 
institution at the south ; that it had been productive 
of more good than harm ; and that " in no other condi- 
tion, or in any other age or country, [had] the Negro 
race ever attained so high an elevation in morals, 
intelligence, or civilization."* Slavery, he was ac- 
customed to say, existed in some form or another, in all 
civilized countries ; and he was disposed to doubt the 
correctness of the sentiment contained in the Declara- 
tion of Independence, that all men are born free and 
equal. Natural rights, indeed, in every age, in every 
country, and under every form of government, have 
been, and are, regulated and controlled by political in- 
stitutions. He considered the colored population as 
constituting an inferior race, and that slavery was not 
a degradation, but had the direct tendency to improve 
their moral, social, and intellectual condition. The 
situation of the slaves was an enviable one in com- 
parison with that of the free negroes at the north, or 
with that of the operatives in the manufactories, and 
the laboring classes generally in Great Britain. f Of 
what value, except relatively, he asked — and asked, too, 
with a great deal of pertinence — w T ere political rights, 
when he saw thousands of voters, in the northern states, 
in the service of powerful monopolies or employed on 



* Letter to Mr. Pakenham, April 18, 1844. 

f See Humphrey's Tour, vol. i. chap. 20 ; Burbin's Observations in 
Europe, vol. ii. chap. 13 ; Head's Manufacturing Districts of England, 

passim. 



884 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1838. 

public works, fairly driven to the polls with ballots in 
their hands ? 

The negro slave, he contended, felt and acknowledged 
his inferiority, and regarded his position as a proper and 
natural one.* The two races in the Southern states 
were almost equal in numbers. They could not live 
upon terms of equality. " It may, in truth, be assumed 
as a maxim," was his language, " that two races differ- 
ing so greatly, and in so many respects, cannot possibly 
exist together in the same country, where their numbers 
are nearly equal, without the one being subjected to the 
other. Experience has proved that the existing rela- 
tion, in which the one is subjected to the other, in the 
slaveholding states, is consistent with the peace and 
safety of both, with great improvement to the inferior ; 
while the same experience proves that * the 

abolition of slavery would (if it did not destroy the 
inferior by conflicts, to which it would lead) reduce it 
to the extremes of vice and wretchedness. In this 
view 7 of the subject, it may be asserted, that what is 
called slavery is in reality a political institution, essen- 
tial to the peace, safety, and prosperity of those states 
of the Union in which it exists/'f 

Entertaining these views, it is not strange that Mr. 
Calhoun regarded the movements of the abolitionists as 
being dictated by a false philanthropy, and that he 
thought them calculated, if persisted in, to jeopard the 
happiness and tranquillity of the slave states, and to 
endanger the peace of the Union ; nor that he so often 
warned his fellow-citizens of the Southern states against 

* Dr. Estes' Defence of Negro Slavery, p. 74. 
f Letter to Mr. Pakenham. 



1838."] EXECUTIVE PATRONAGE. 385 

the designs openly avowed, or secretly cherished, which, 
if not early opposed or counteracted, would prove 
highly prejudicial to their interests and their welfare. 
Where so much was at stake, he thought it well to be 
w ; ise in time. 

At the session of 1838-39, in a speech characterized 
by his usual ability, Mr. Calhoun opposed a bill intro- 
duced by Mr. Crittenden, to prevent the interference 
of certain federal officers in the elections. He took 
the ground, that the acceptance of an office under the 
federal government, did not deprive the individual of 
the right of suffrage guaranteed to him by the constitu- 
tion and laws of his own state, and ought not to debar 
him from the exercise of any of the privileges incident 
thereto. He further argued, that the true cause of the 
increase in strength and in influence of the executive 
power, was to be found in the large revenue w r hich had 
been collected and expended, — in the latter operation 
adding materially to the patronage of the federal govern- 
ment and its head. He stated that it would be pre- 
sumptuous in him to advise the administration, but if 
they would hear the voice of one who wished them 
well, he would recommend to them to bring back the 
government to the true JefTersonian policy. " You are 
placed," he said, "in the most remarkable juncture that 
has ever occurred since the establishment of the federal 
government, and, by seizing the opportunity, you may 
bring the vessel of state to a position where she may 
take a new tack, and thereby escape all the shoals and 
breakers into the midst of which a false steerage has 
run her, and bring her triumphantly into her destined 
port, with honor to yourselves and safety to those on 

17 



386 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1840. 

board. Take your stand boldly, avow your object; 
disclose your measures, and let the people see clearly 
that you intend to do what Jefferson designed, but, from 
adverse circumstances, could not accomplish : to reverse 
the measures originating in principles and policy not 
congenial with our political system ; to divest the 
government of all undue patronage and influence ; to 
restrict it to the few great objects intended by the Con- 
stitution ; in a word, to give a complete ascendency to 
the good old Virginia school over its antagonist, which 
time and experience have proved to be foreign and 
dangerous to our system of government, and you may 
count with confidence on their support, without looking 
to other means of success. Should the government 
take such a course at this favorable moment, our free 
and happy institutions may be perpetuated for genera- 
tions, but, if a different, short will be their duration." 

At the session of 1839-40, several important ques- 
tions were discussed. Mr. Calhoun made able speeches 
in opposition to the assumption of the state debts by the 
general government, — a project then seriously agitated 
by a number of leading whigs ; and to the bankrupt 
bill, which he approved, however, as respected its 
compulsory features relating to individuals. He thought 
the bill ought not to include banks, and decidedly con- 
demned the insolvent features introduced into it. But 
his ablest speech at this session was made upon his 
resolutions in the case of the brig Enterprise, on the 
13th of March, 1840. These resolutions affirmed, and 
Mr. Calhoun maintained with much power and elo* 
quence in his speech, that a ship or a vessel on the high 
seas, in time of peace, engaged in a lawful voyage, was. 



1840.] PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 387 

according to the laws of nations, under the exclusive 
jurisdiction of the state to which her flag belonged, — 
as much so as if constituting a part of its own domain ; 
that if such ship or vessel should be forced, by stress of 
weather, or other unavoidable cause, into the port of a 
friendly power, she would lose none of the rights apper- 
taining to her on the high seas, but, on the contrary, she, 
and her cargo and persons on board, with their property, 
and all the rights belonging to their personal relations, 
as established by the laws of the state to which they 
belong, would be placed under the protection which the 
laws of nations extend to the unfortunate under such 
circumstances ; and that the brig Enterprise, which 
was forced unavoidably, by stress of weather, into 
Port Hamilton, Bermuda Island, while on a lawful voy- 
age on the high seas, from one port of the Union to 
another, came within the principles embraced in his 
resolutions, and the seizure and detention of the negroes 
on board, by the local authority of the island, was an 
act in violation of the laws of nations, and highly un- 
just to our own citizens, to whom they belonged. 

At the presidential election in 1840, Mr. Calhoun 
supported Mr. Van Buren, as did his friends in South 
Carolina. The administration of that gentleman had 
been conducted, on all important points, in entire con- 
sonance, as Mr. Calhoun believed, with the republican 
principles ; and he decidedly approved, therefore, of 
giving the electoral vote of the state to him. But the 
result in the Union was unfavorable, and General Har- 
rison and Mr. Tyler were elected to the two highest 
offices in the gift of the American people — not as the 
exponents of any particular set of principles, for the 



388 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1841. 

convention that nominated them refused to pass any 
resolutions, and while General Harrison was understood 
to be an ultra Whig, or under the control of ultra Whigs, 
Mr. Tyler was equally well known as a State Rights man. 
Next in importance to the question of the currency, 
Mr. Calhoun regarded that of the public lands. At the 
session of 1840-41, he discussed the whole policy of 
the government with respect to the latter subject. He 
delivered three speeches ; one on the prospective pre- 
emption bill, which he opposed ; the second on an 
amendment, offered bv Mr. Crittenden as a substitute, 
providing for the distribution among the states of the 
revenue arising from the sale of the public lands ; and 
the third in reply to the speeches of Mr. Webster and 
Mr. Clay on Mr. Crittenden's amendment. Mr. Cal- 
houn had often reflected on this subject, and was there- 
fore entirely at home upon it. He was opposed, in toto, 
to the scheme of distribution, and advocated the cession 
of the public lands to the new states in which they 
were situated. "As far back as February, 1837, he 
offered a substitute, in the form of an amendment to 
the bill 'to suspend the sale of the public lands,' in 
which he proposed to cede to the new states the por- 
tion of the public lands lying within their respective 
limits, on certain conditions, which he accompanied by 
a speech explanatory of his views and reasons. He 
followed up the subject in a speech delivered in Janu- 
ary, 1839, on the Graduation Bill; and in May, 1840, 
an elaborate and full report was made from the Com- 
mittee on Public Lands, and a bill introduced by him, 
containing substantially the same provisions with his 
original proposition. 



1841.] THE PUBLIC LANDS. 389 

" There have been few measures ever presented for 
consideration so grossly misrepresented, or so much 
misconceived, as the one in question. It has been 
represented as a gift — a surrender — an abandonment 
of the public domain to the new states ; and having 
assumed that to be its true character, the most unwor- 
thy motives have been attributed to the author for in- 
troducing it. Nothing is more untrue. The cession 
is neither more nor less than a conditional sale, not ex- 
tended to the whole of the public domain, as represent- 
ed, but to that portion in the new states respectively, 
within whose limits they lie ; the greater part of which 
are mere remnants, which have long since been offered 
for sale, without being sold. 

" The conditions on which they are proposed to be 
ceded or sold are drawn up with the greatest care, and 
with the strictest provisions to insure their fulfilment ; 
one of which is, that the state should pay 65 per cent, 
of the gross proceeds of the sale to the General Gov- 
ernment, and retain only 35 per cent, for the trouble, 
expense, and responsibility attending their administra- 
tion. Another is, that the existing laws, as they stand, 
except so far as they may be modified or authorized to 
be modified by the act of cession, shall remain un- 
changed, unless altered by the joint consent of the 
General Government and the several states. They are 
respectively authorized, if they should think proper, to 
adopt a system of graduation and preemption within 
well-defined and safe limits prescribed in the conditions ; 
and the General Government is authorized to appoint 
officers in the several states, to whom its share of the 
proceeds of the sale shall be directly paid, without 



390 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1841. 

going into the state treasury ; and these conditions are 
put under the guardianship of the courts, by providing, 
if they shall be violated, that all after rules by the state 
shall be null and void. So far from this being a gift or 
an abandonment of the public lands to the new states, 
he has clearly proved, if there be truth in figures, that 
the government would receive a greater amount of 
revenue from the lands in the new states, under the 
system he proposes, than under the present. These 
demonstrations are based on calculations which neither 
have nor can be impugned. 

"But his views extended far beyond dollars and cents 
in bringing forward the measure. He proposed to 
effect by it the high political objects of placing the new 
states on the same footing of equality and independence 
with the old, in reference to their domain ; to cut off 
the vast amount of patronage which the public lands 
place in the hand of the executive ; to withdraw them 
as one of the stakes, from the presidential game ; to 
diminish by one fourth the business of Congress, and 
with it the length and expense of its session ; to enlist 
the government of the new states on the side of the 
General Government ; to aid in a more careful adminis- 
tration of the rest of the public domain, and thereby 
prevent the whole of it from becoming the property 
of the occupants from possession ; and, finally, to pre- 
vent the too rapid extinction of Indian titles in propor- 
tion to the demand for lands from the increase of popu- 
lation, which he shows to be pregnant with great em- 
barrassment and danger. These are great objects, of 
high political import ; and if they could be effected by 
the measure proposed, it is justly entitled to be ranked 



1841.] WHIG MEASURES. 391 

among the wisest and most politic ever brought for- 
ward. That they can be effected, it is almost impos- 
sible for any well-informed and dispassionate mind de- 
liberately to read the speeches and documents referred 
to, and to doubt."*' 

What would have been the policy pursued by Gen- 
eral Harrison in his administration of the government, 
we can only conjecture. His cabinet was composed 
of decided Whigs ; and there is every reason to sup- 
pose he would have approved the measures subsequently 
proposed by their friends in Congress. But the hand 
of Providence removed him by death, shortly after his 
inauguration, and Mr. Tyler succeeded him in the 
presidential office. Previous to this time, an extra 
session of Congress had been called, upon the urgent 
solicitation of leading Whigs, who were in haste to undo 
the legislation of former years, and to establish, as far 
as they could by statute, the Utopia in governmental 
policy which had long been the subject alike of their 
dreams and their hopes. 

Congress assembled for the extra session on the last 
day of May, 1841 ; Mr. Calhoun again appearing in 
his place in the Senate, to which he had been reelected 
for another term. High in hope, rendered confident 
in tone and overbearing in manner by their recent vic- 
tory, and full to overflowing with ardor and enthusiasm, 
the Whig members of the 27th Congress entered the 
Capitol. In their haste to carry their favorite measures, 
they stopped not for forms or ceremonies. They fol- 
lowed without hesitation in the wake of their leader 
Mr. Clay, who brought forward and urged the adoption 

* Memoir of Mr. Calhoun, 1843. 



392 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1841. 

of his plans, with the boldness and manliness, and, 
withal, the arrogance forming such prominent traits in 
his character. The Independent Treasury law was 
repealed, against the votes of Mr. Calhoun and his Re- 
publican friends. In the minority as they were, it 
seemed impossible to oppose any checks or hindrances 
to the movements of the party in power. 

Having disposed, as they thought forever, of this 
great Republican measure, the Whigs began to develop 
their own policy. Their system of measures, leaving 
out of view minor and comparatively unimportant prop- 
ositions, was a triad — the Distribution of the Land 
Revenue among the states, the Incorporation of a Na- 
tional Bank, and the Revision of the Tariff so as to 
afford increased protection. 

Distribution was but another name for the assump- 
tion of the state debts, and its object was to create a 
necessity for a high protective tariff, by withdrawing 
the revenue derived from the sale of the public lands 
from the treasury. Mr. Calhoun opposed it, as he had 
done at previous sessions ; and on the 24th of August, 
1841, he delivered one of his ablest speeches against the 
passage of the bill. It was an effort every way worthy 
of the cause and the man. He, of course, took the old 
Republican ground, that the original cession of the 
public lands was made to furnish the General Govern- 
ment with the means of defence, in opposition to the 
federal doctrine that it was the trustee of the states 
making the cession ; and that if this resource were 
taken away, a much higher tariff would be needed for 
revenue — a result which the protectionists were ex- 
tremely anxious to secure — and thus the policy of a 



1841.] THE BANK BILLS. 393 

high protective tariff with a permanent distribution of 
the surplus revenue, would be fastened on the country 
for all time to come. 

So palpable were the objections raised by Mr. Cal- 
houn and other senators to the policy of distribution, 
and they were urged with such power and effect, that 
a sufficient number of Whigs united with them to pro- 
cure the adoption of a proviso to the bill, declaring 
that the distribution should cease whenever the average 
rate of duties collected exceeded twenty per cent. 
Before the law went into operation, the Whigs increas- 
ed the duties beyond that average, and it remained a 
dead letter on the statute book. 

The Bankrupt bill was again brought forward at this 
session, and again opposed by Mr. Calhoun. 

Two different bills providing for the incorporation 
of a national bank — the second one, however, disguis- 
ing the project under the name of a fiscal agent of the 
treasury — passed both houses of Congress. Mr. Cal- 
houn now felt free to vote upon the question as if it 
were an entirely new one ; and as he was totally op- 
posed to any connection between the government and 
banks, he voted against both measures. President 
Tyler, true to his State Rights principles, vetoed each 
bill in turn. The Whig party were confounded and 
dismayed ; Congress adjourned in confusion, and the 
cabinet was dissolved. At the ensuing session — that 
of 1841-42 — a fierce onslaught was made, under the 
auspices of Mr. Clay, upon the President, and upon his 
exercise of the veto power. However much Mr. Cal- 
houn was disposed to resist the usurpations of the ex- 
ecutive branch of the government, he would by no 



394 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1842. 

means trespass upon its rights ; and he regarded the 
veto as one of the great conservative features of the 
Constitution — a check upon hasty legislation and a 
protection to the Executive, the states, and the people, 
against legislative encroachment. 

One of the ablest speeches he ever delivered was 
made on this question, and in defence of the veto power, 
which Mr. Clay proposed to take away in part from 
the President, by an amendment of the Constitution. 
He contended that if the executive power had been 
unwisely or improperly increased, the fault was in 
Congress — in their special legislation, in the high tariff 
system, the collection of more revenue than was needed, 
the vast expenditures, and the multiplication of officers 
consequent upon these evils. " Is it not clear," he said, 
" that so far from the veto being the cause of the in- 
crease of his [the President's] power, it would have 
acted as a limitation on it if it had been more freely 
and frequently used ? If the President had vetoed the 
original bank — the connection with the banking system 
— the tariffs of '24 and '28, and the numerous acts ap- 
propriating money for roads, canals, harbors, and a long 
list of other measures not less unconstitutional, would 
his power have been half as great as it now is? He 
has grown great and powerful, not because he used his 
veto, but because he abstained from using it. In fact, 
it is difficult to imagine a case in which its application 
can tend to enlarge his power, except it be the case of 
an act intended to repeal a law calculated to increase 
his power, or to restore the authority of one which, by 
an arbitrary construction of his power, he has set 
aside." He also denied, most emphatically, that this 



1842.] DEFENCE OF THE VETO POWER. 395 

was a government in which the numerical majority 
were alone potential, as was contended by the Whigs, 
who affirmed that the people had decided in favor of 
their measures by the election of General Harrison, 
although they made no declaration of their principles 
whatsoever. But he held that this was a government in 
which the states were heard, and one in which the rights 
of the minority were respected. This was done by the 
division of the legislative power into three branches ; 
and to remove one of them, as must be the effect of 
abolishing or restricting the veto, would be to destroy 
the beauty and harmony of the whole system. 

Early in this session, Mr. Clay had introduced a 
series of resolutions expressive of his views in relation 
to the revenues and expenditures of the government. 
He avowed himself friendly to the general principles 
of the Compromise act and the advalorem feature ; 
proposed to raise no more revenue than was necessary 
for the economical administration of the government ; 
and disapproved of any resort to loans or treasury notes, 
in time of peace, except to meet temporary deficits. 
So far Mr. Calhoun agreed with him : But he further 
proposed to raise all the revenue from customs, to sur- 
render the land fund to the states, and to repeal the 
proviso in the distribution act ; and upon these points 
they wholly disagreed. Mr. Calhoun spoke on the 
resolutions, on the 16th of March, and protested in 
earnest terms against any departure from the great 
principle of the Compromise act, that no duty should 
be imposed after the 30th day of June, 1842, except 
for revenue necessary for the government economically 
administered. 



396 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1842. 

The protest of Mr. Calhoun was unavailing. Mr. 
Clay himself resigned his seat in the Senate, partly, it 
may be, because the friends of protection were beseech- 
ing him to lend his aid in raising the duties : and this 
he could not have done, without violating his solemn 
declaration made in 1833, that the compromise act was 
" a treaty of peace and amity" not to be disturbed,* and 
departing from the sentiments avowed in his speech on 
his resolutions, that specific duties and discriminations 
were unwise and unjust, and the advalorem principle 
was entitled to the preference. f 

But, in the absence of Mr. Clay, there were other 
champions of protection to take his place, and the 
renewal of this perilous policy had been predetermined. 
Were it not for the disordered currencv, the large 
expenditures, and the excessive issues of paper money 
by the banks, the influence of the compromise act 
would have been healthy. But the sudden reduction 
of the duties, on the 31st of December, 1841, in the then 
embarrassed condition of the country, occasioned a 
great falling off in the revenue. This was a misfortune, 
as Mr. Calhoun readily admitted ; and he would cheer- 
fully have favored any temporary expedient, or any 
moderate change in the tariff system, which would have 
made good the deficiency and prevented a recurrence 
of the evil. With this the manufacturers were not con- 
tent ; they wanted to substitute the old protective 
duties for the revenue duties, J and to restore the 
specific features and the minimums. 

* Speech in the Senate, February 15, 1833. 

f Speech, March 1, 1842. 

% The terms protective duty and revenue duty are often misapplied 



1842.] TREATY OP WASHINGTON. 397 

In the first place, a provisional tariff bill was passed, 
extending the compromise act to the 1st of August, as 
the minimum was reached on the 30th of June, 1842, 
and after that date no duty exceeding twenty per cent, 
was to be collected, nor that even, as was thought by 
many, without some special law. The provisional bill 
required the duties to be collected at the same rates as 
were collectable on the 1st of June : it also postponed 
the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands, but 
did not surrender the principle, and Mr. Calhoun and 
other republican senators therefore opposed it. It was 
vetoed by the President ; and the act of 3 842, establish- 
ing a rate of duties averaging nearly forty per cent on 
the aggregate value of imports, and of course highly 
protective, subsequently passed both houses — each by 
a single vote — and was reluctantly signed by the Presi- 
dent. It is almost unnecessary to say, that Mr. Cal- 
houn opposed the passage of this bill from first to last. 
He likewise delivered an able speech against it on the 
5th of August, and pronounced it to be decidedly worse 
than " the bill of abominations." Its protective features 
were artfully concealed under specific rates and mini- 
mums, but its true character could not be mistaken, and 
it was generally condemned throughout the country, by 
all except the manufacturers and the ultra Whigs. 

On the 20th day of August, 1842, the Senate ratified 
the treaty of Washington, or the Ashburton treaty, by 
which the northeastern boundary was satisfactorily 

A revenue duty is one whose increase would be followed by an increase 
of revenue, or which is already fixed at the maximum of revenue ; and 
a protective duty is one of absolute prohibition, or which must be re- 
duced in order to increase the revenue. 



398 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1842. 

settled, by the decisive vote of 39 to 9. Mr. Calhoun 
voted with the majority, and delivered a speech in favor 
of the treaty marked by great ability and power, and 
which elicited the highest encomiums in England as 
well as in America. He had never doubted the justice 
of the claims of Maine, yet, as the United States had 
in effect agreed to compromise the question by sub- 
mitting it to arbitration, he approved of the treaty as a 
fair and honorable settlement of the difficulty. He 
fully concurred in the sentiments afterwards expressed 
so pertinently and forcibly by Sir Robert Peel, in 
reference to this and the Oregon question, that it was 
" the better policy to propose, in the spirit of peace, con- 
ditions perfectly compatible with the honor of each 
country, and not requiring from either any sacrifice, 
territorial or commercial, which would not be dearly 
purchased by the cost of a single week's hostilities."* 

* Address to his constituents at Tarn worth, 1847. 



CHAPTER XII. 

The Oregon Question — Resignation of Mr. Calhoun — Appointed Secre- 
tary of State— Annexation of Texas— Administration of Mr. Polk — 
Declines Mission to England — Returns to the Senate — Memphis Con- 
vention — Improvement of Harbors and Rivers — Triumph of Free 
Trade — War with Mexico — Continued Agitation of the Slavery 
Question— Southern Adda-ess— Mr. Clay's Plan of Compromise — Last 
Speech of Mr. Calhoun. 

For reasons similar to those which had influenced 
him in voting for the ratification of the Treaty of 
Washington, Mr. Calhoun opposed the efforts, whether 
intentional or otherwise, made during the latter part ot 
Mr. Tyler's administration and the first year of Mr. 
Polk's, to produce a war between the United States 
and Great Britain on account of the Oregon difficulty. 
He did not think that the title to the whole of Oregon, 
as high as 54° 40', was entirely unquestionable. On 
the contrary, he was of the opinion, that the 49th 
parallel, or some line near that, should be adopted as 
the boundary. As he regarded this matter, both par- 
ties were committed, by the negotiations of 1818, 1824, 
and 1826-27, to a compromise of the question by the 
mutual surrender of a part of their respective claims ; 
and at the session of 1842-43, he delivered a speech on 
the Oregon bill, introduced by Mr. Linn, of Missouri, 
which provided for granting lands, and for commencing 



400 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1843. 

systematically the colonization and settlement of the 
territory in dispute. He opposed the bill, and insisted, 
that it was neither wise nor prudent, to assert at that 
time the exclusive right to the territory, as the bill con- 
templated. In his view, the position of the United 
States should be one of masterly inactivity. The pos- 
session of the Pacific coast was of great importance to 
them, as it could not be doubted. that their authority 
would soon extend from ocean to ocean. The naval 
superiority of Great Britain, in men and materiel, if not 
in efficiency, was not to be doubted nor denied, and it 
was evident that she could dispatch troops and muni- 
tions of war to Oregon with about as much facility as 
the United States, or, from her East India possessions, 
with even greater ease. He was in favor therefore, of 
leaving causes already in operation, to work as they had 
done, silently. The tide of voluntary emigration from 
the older states and territories was passing beyond the 
Rocky Mountains ; and it was more than probable, 
that in a few years Oregon would contain a large 
population, ready and willing, if the title of the United 
States should then be asserted by force of arms, essen- 
tially to aid in its support and defence. 

At the close of this session, which terminated in 
March, 1843, Mr. Calhoun resigned his seat in the 
Senate. His private affairs had become considerably 
embarrassed, in consequence of his protracted absences 
from home, and his inability to supervise and direct 
their management except during brief intervals. Of 
senatorial honors, too, he had enough to satisfy the am- 
bition of any man. Many of his friends, doubtless, look- 
ed forward to his elevation to the highest office in the 



1843.] RESIGNATION AS SENATOR. 401 

nation, — as they had a right to do, for he was in every 
way worthy of this proud distinction, and would have 
conferred more honor upon it, than would have been 
reflected upon himself. Did he cherish any aspirations 
ol this character, they were confined to his own bosom, 
and never gave him a moments' pain. Retired to the pri- 
vacy of his beautiful home at Fort Hill, in the vicinity 
of Pendleton Court House, he was far happier, in the 
enjoyment of domestic happiness, and in the occupa- 
tions and pursuits of a planter, than while mingling in 
the bustle and turmoil of party politics, which was 
wholly unavoidable while he was at Washington. 

But as the war-horse never forgets the sights and 
sounds that animated him on the field of battle, so he 
remembered the important subjects that had engrossed 
his attention, and taxed his powers, in the stormy 
debate ; and if he did not long to participate again in 
the strife, his thoughts were often turned to the spot 
where "the war of words was high." The theory of 
our government — of all governments — was still his 
study ; and politics, in the enlarged, more comprehen- 
sive, and philosophical sense of the term, daily attended 
him in his study and in his walks, as familiar spirits 
with whom he loved to take sweet counsel together. 

On the 28th of February, 1844, Mr. Upshur, the ta- 
lented and accomplished Secretary of State, was sud- 
denly killed on board the steamer Princeton, by the ex- 
plosion of one of its guns. Previous to the occurrence 
of this melancholy event, negotiations had been opened 
between the authorities of Texas and those of the 
United States, for the annexation of her territory to 
that of the latter power. 



402 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1844. 

Mr. Calhoun had been long known as a warm friend 
to the acquisition of Texas. He was never of the 
opinion that Louisiana extended beyond the Sabine, 
and did not, therefore, as a member of Mr. Monroe's 
cabinet, disapprove of the surrender of the American 
claim to the territory west of that river.* In May. 
1836, he proposed the recognition of the independence 
of Texas, by a resolution introduced into the Senate; 
in 1837, he voted for the acknowledgment of her inde- 
pendence ; in 1838, he supported a resolution declaring 
that the acquisition of Texas was desirable, whenever 
it could be made with her consent, and consistent with 
the treaties, faith, and stipulations of the United States ; 
and when Texas had maintained her position of suc- 
cessful rebellion for a period of nine years, during which 
time she had exercised before the world all the rights 
and powers of an independent state, he did not consider 
it requisite or necessary to consult the government from 
whose authority she had revolted, before entering into 
a treaty of annnexation with her. 

There were several powerful reasons, as Mr. Cal- 
houn thought, which imperatively demanded the annexa- 
tion of Texas to the territories of the United States. 
In the first place, it was important because of its prox- 
imity to New Orleans, the great emporium of the valley 
of the Mississippi, and the liability of the latter to be 
attacked from it under numerous disadvantages, in a 
state of war ; in the second place, it was important, be- 
cause England desired to secure Texas as a commercial 
dependency,! from which she could obtain cotton, in 

* Address to the People of the Southern States, July 5th, 1840. 
f See the Speech of Mr. Houston in the U. S. Senate, — Congressional 
Globe — 2d session, 29th Congress — p. 459. 



1844.] THE TEXAS QUESTION. 403 

abundance, for her manufactories, and live oak for the 
use of her immense naval establishment, — and thus the 
pecuniary interests of the cotton growing states, which 
furnished the English manufacturers with their chief 
supply of the raw material, were likely to be seriously 
prejudiced ; and in the third place, it was important, 
because England and France were exerting all their 
influence to prevent the annexation, and the former had 
favored projects for the abolition of slavery in Texas, 
which, if it should take place, could not fail to disturb 
the peace and tranquillity of the American Union.* It 
is true, that the British Secretary of Foreign affairs 
(Lord Aberdeen), while admitting the desire of his gov- 
ernment to witness the abolition of slavery in Texas, 
insisted that they had no intention of interfering in any 
way with the institutions of the United States, or of 
any portion of them ;f but it is equally true, that frank- 
ness never characterized British diplomacy. Lord 
Aberdeen had had an interview with a deputation of 
the World's Convention, upon the subject of procuring 
the abolition of slavery in Texas ; and he had publicly 
avowed his feelings and wishes in this respect, on the 
floor of Parliament. J It was notorious, too, that the 
Canadas had for years been filled with the emissaries 
of British abolitionists, who were constantly engaged in 
efforts to promote the escape of slaves from their mas- 
ters in the southern states of the union ; and it could 
not be doubted that they anticipated a much better 

* Letter of Mr. Calhoun to Mr. Pakenham, April 18, 1844. 
f Senate Doc. 341 — 1st session, 28th Congress — p. 48. 
\ Conversation in the House of Lords, between Lord Brougham and 
Lord Aberdeen — See London Morning Chronicle, August 19, 1843. 



404 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1844. 

field for their operations, if slavery could be abolished 
in Texas, close upon the borders of the slaveholding 
states. 

Such being the well-known sentiments of Mr. Cal- 
houn with reference to the proposed annexation of 
Texas, he was invited by President Tyler, who had re- 
constructed his cabinet from the members of both politi- 
cal parties, to take the place at the head of the State 
Department made vacant by the death of Mr. Upshur. 
After some hesitation, which was at length overcome 
by the importance of this pending question, Mr. 
Calhoun accepted the appointment — the nomination 
having been unanimously confirmed by the Senate with- 
out even going through the formality of a reference to 
a committee — and immediately repaired to his post at 
Washington. On the 12th day of April, 1844, he had 
the gratification of signing a treaty of annexation with 
the representatives of the Texan government. 

The treaty was discussed for several weeks in the 
Senate, but was finally rejected by that body, partly on 
account of political considerations and the objection of 
the northern whig senators to the extension of the slave 
territory of the Union ; but mainly, for the reason, that 
the boundaries of Texas were not denned, though it was 
well understood that she laid claim to all the territory 
North and East of the Rio del Norte, or Rio Grande, 
not belonging to the United States — the justice of 
which claim was disputed by most, if not all, the sena- 
tors who voted against the treaty. No provision was 
inserted in the treaty in regard to the boundary, because 
it proposed to annex Texas as a territory, and the right 
to settle it would, of course, belong to the government 



1844.] ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 405 

of the United States. In this view of the case, as soon 
as the treaty was concluded, the American charge cT 
affaires was instructed by Mr. Calhoun to assure the 
Mexican Government that the President of .the United 
States desired to settle all questions between the two 
countries that might grow out of the treaty, or any 
other cause, on liberal and satisfactory terms ; and that 
the boundary of Texas was purposely left undefined in 
the treaty, in order that it might be an open question 
to be fairly and fully discussed and settled.* An envoy 
was shortly after sent to Mexico, with instructions to 
make the same assurances, and with full powers to 
enter upon the negotiation.! 

Meanwhile, Mr. Polk had been put in nomination 
for the presidency by the Republican party, as the 
avowed friend of the immediate annexation of Texas ; 
and at the election in the fall of 1844, he was triumph- 
antly chosen over Mr. Clay, the Whig candidate, and 
a decided opponent of the measure. Other questions — 
such as the protective policy, internal improvements, a 
national bank and an independent treasury — were like- 
wise at issue. Upon these Mr. Polk coincided with 
Mr. Calhoun, and the latter was highly gratified at his 
success. 

Public opinion being now ascertained to be favorable 
to the annexation, a joint resolution was brought for- 
ward and passed at the second session of the twenty- 
eighth Congress, under which Texas was at length an- 
nexed. On the accession of Mr. Polk, in March, 1845, 

* Senate Doc. 341 — 1st session, 28th Congress— p. 53. 
f Documents accompanying President's Message, 2nd session, 28th 
Congress. 



406 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1844. 

many of Mr. Calhoun's friends were quite anxious that 
he should be continued in the office of Secretary of 
State, but he promptly informed the new president, that 
he was unwilling to remain in the cabinet. He was 
not by any means unfriendly to the incoming admin- 
istration, but he desired to maintain a position of quasi 
independence, and he was daily becoming more of a 
statesman and less of a politician. But aside from this 
consideration, there were other reasons that influenced 
him. There were, among the supporters of Mr. Polk, 
many who were not favorable to the annexation of 
Texas, or who were dissatisfied with the manner in 
which it had been effected ;* and it was to be feared, 
that if Mr. Calhoun remained in the cabinet, they 
would attempt to embarrass the administration, for the 
reason that he had been the most efficient agent in 
securing that valuable acquisition of territory. He 
had also questioned the propriety of a resolution adopted 
by the convention that nominated Mr. Polk, in favor 
of asserting the title of the United States to the whole 
of Oregon ; and when he saw an effort making in the 
north and west, to force the question to a settlement, 
at the hazard of bringing on a war with Great Britain, 
he had opened a negotiation with the British minister 
for the adjustment of the conflicting claims. His 
course in this respect was not satisfactory to all the 
republican members from the northern and western 
states, and the harmony of the party, for the time at least, 
w r as probably secured by his retiring from the cabinet. 

* Among the supporters of Mr. Clay there were probably as many 
who approved of the annexation, as there were friends of Mr. Polk who 
opposed it. 



1845.] MEMPHIS CONVENTION. 407 

But Mr. Polk shared in the feeling common to the 
prudent and sagacious politicians in both parties, that 
Mr. Calhoun's abilities — his caution, skill, and fore- 
sight, — might be of great benefit to the country in a 
diplomatic capacity, and therefore tendered to him the 
mission to England. This he declined, both on ac- 
count of the indisposition of his daughter, and because 
of his firm conviction that the Oregon difficulty, in re- 
gard to which he felt great anxiety, could be settled 
only at Washington — that " the peace," as he said, 
"was to be made here." 

Mr. Calhoun had been succeeded in the Senate by 
Judge Huger, but the expression of the whole South 
was so earnest and so united in favor of the return of 
the former to his old position, that the Judge resigned 
his seat, and Mr. Calhoun was chosen to fill the unex- 
pired term. He would willingly have retired once 
more to private life, but his friends insisted that the 
country had need of his services in the settlement of 
the Oregon question, and he yielded to their wishes. 
He again took his place in that august body of which 
he had long been one of the most distinguished orna- 
ments, and had the proud satisfaction of defending the 
Oregon treaty of 1816, and of contributing to its rati- 
fication by his vote. 

In November, 1845, a South- Western Convention, 
composed of delegates from the southern and western 
states, was held at Memphis, Tennessee. Mr. Cal- 
houn attended as a delegate from South Carolina, and 
was chosen president of the convention. Its object 
was to promote the development of the resources of 
the western and south-western states ; and resolutions, 



408 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1846. 

and a memorial to Congress, setting forth the objects 
had in view, and the action required by the general 
government, were adopted. Mr. Calhoun did not con- 
cur in all the proceedings though approving of them in 
the main. He presented the memorial in the Senate, 
at the first session of the twenty-ninth Congress, and 
on his motion it was referred to a select committee of 
which he was made chairman. On the 28th of June, 
1846, he made a report, luminous in style and masterly 
in argument, in which may be found his matured opin- 
ions upon the subject of improvements by the general 
government, more particularly with respect to harbors 
and rivers. 

He thought that the navigation of the Mississippi 
river and its navigable tributaries, where three or more 
states bordered upon them — which was the main sub- 
ject of consideration at the Memphis Convention — ■ 
might and ought to be improved by the general gov- 
ernment, by the removal of obstructions. He derived 
the power to make these improvements, not from the 
clause in the constitution authorizing Congress to pro- 
vide for the " common defence and general welfare," 
but from that authorizing Congress " to regulate com- 
merce with foreign nations and among the several 
states." Harbors for shelter and for the navy, he was 
of opinion, might be made in the Mississippi and its 
tributaries ; but canals around falls or other obstruc- 
tions, could not be made, except that where they passed 
through the public domain, alternate sections of land 
might be granted to aid in their construction. Where 
a tributary of the Mississippi was bordered by less than 
three states, he thought it should be improved by the 



1846.] IMPROVEMENT OF HARBORS AND RIVERS. 409 

state or states which it intersected, or by individuals. 
The same principles he applied to other rivers empty- 
ing into the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic, and the 
lakes. He also expressed the opinion, that the power 
to regulate commerce embraced the establishment of 
light-houses, piers, buoys, beacons, and harbors for 
shelter and the navy, on the sea coast, the lakes, and 
the rivers intersecting three or more states. Commer- 
cial harbors, he thought, should be constructed by the 
states ; and Congress should empower them to lay ton- 
nage duties for this purpose. The general govern- 
ment, he maintained, had no power to aid directly in 
the construction of roads or canals, but, as in the case 
of canals around falls, alternate sections of the public 
land intersected by them might be granted, because 
such improvements were calculated to raise the value 
of the remaining sections. 

Cherishing these views, Mr. Calhoun cordially ap- 
proved of the veto of the Harbor and River bill by 
President Polk, in August, 1846, and of the general 
principles of his special message on the subject of in- 
ternal improvements, dated the 15th of December, 1847. 

At the session of 1845-6, Mr. Calhoun was gratified 
by the reenactment of the Independent Treasury bill, 
with some modifications which experience had shown 
to be necessary, and doubly so, by the establishment 
of a new tariff of duties based upon strict revenue 
principles. The protracted struggle was brought to a 
close, Free trade was at length triumphant. There 
was an end of distribution sustained by a protective 
tariff. The important truths which he had labored so 
long to establish were now acknowledged with a unani- 

18 



410 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1846. 

mity that promised to ensure the much desired perma- 
nence in the imposition and collection of duties. The 
effect of this great triumph was not confined to this 
side of the Atlantic ; Cobden and his associates were 
inspired to new efforts by the success of Calhoun ; and 
the ablest statesmen of Great Britain, the Peels and the 
Russells, yielded to the influences that were breaking 
down the barriers of commercial intercourse. Mr. 
Calhoun would have been more than human, had he 
not rejoiced to witness this result of his exertions. But 
he indulged in no unseemly expressions of gratification. 
" After a struggle of two and twenty years, Truth and 
He had been successful, but no personal exultation 
sparkled in his eye, or triumphed in his words. The 
measure and its great consequences alone occupied his 
thoughts."* 

Having aided in the settlement of the Oregon ques- 
tion, and in the enactment of the tariff law of 1846, 
Mr. Calhoun would now gladly have returned to the 
peace and quietude of the happy home, ever cheered 
and enlivened by his presence ; for his private affairs 
demanded his attention, and his health was considerably 
impaired. It was his misfortune, too, to be constantly 
misrepresented by some of the friends of the adminis- 
tration, who seemed unable to comprehend the motives 
that prompted him to vote in opposition to them, when 
required by the rigid adherence to his principles, which 
it was his pride to maintain. But the war with Mexico 
induced him to remain in the Senate, to which he was 
reelected for another term in 1846, and to continue in 
the position which he had graced, and in which it 

* Mrs. Maury's Statesmen of America, p. 183. 



1847.] THE MEXICAN WAR. 411 

was his happy fate to die, " with the harness on his 
back." 

Had he conducted the negotiations for the annexa- 
tion of Texas from the beginning, under the adminis- 
tration of Mr. Tyler, it is highly probable that our 
peaceful relations with Mexico would have been pre- 
served. He was a great enemy to war, and his policy 
was always that of peace. He had long feared that hos- 
tilities with Mexico would ensue, and yet he thought, to 
the last, a collision might have been avoided. Influenced 
by these feelings, he refused to vote either for or against 
the act of May, 1846, declaring the existence of a state 
of war ; yet he supported for the most part the meas- 
ures of the administration, looking to the vigorous pro- 
secution of hostilities, till the session of 1847-8, when 
he proposed resolutions disapproving of the conquest 
of Mexico, for the purpose of incorporating it into the 
Union, or holding it as a province ; and on the 4th of 
January, 1848, he delivered a speech in their favor. 
At the previous session he had suggested the with- 
drawal of the American troops to a defensive line, and 
the occupation of the territory behind it, and the block- 
ade of the ports of Mexico, till terms of peace were 
accepted. His resolutions were offered for the same 
purpose, and he enforced his views upon the defensive 
policy with great ability. Before any final action was 
had upon his resolutions, the treaty of Guadalupe Hi- 
dalsro was laid before the Senate and ratified with his 
vote. 

But a grave and important question arose out of the 
war — one which Mr. Calhoun anticipated, and which 
is now (July, 1850) agitating the country from one end 



412 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1848. 

to the other. By the treaty of peace, California and 
New Mexico were annexed to the United States, and 
the Rio Grande was established as the southwestern 
boundary of the Union with the assent and concur- 
rence of the Mexican government. The Abolition 
feeling had been constantly increasing at the North, 
and the Whig party there, with very few exceptions, 
and a considerable portion of the" Republicans, were 
more or less under its influence, even though many of 
them deprecated the constant agitation of the subject. 
Sectional animosities had been aroused; at the North, 
the article of the Constitution, and the laws of Con- 
gress providing for the recapture of fugitive slaves, had 
been repeatedly disregarded or set at defiance ; and 
questionable measures of retaliation had been adopted 
in some of the southern states. 

An effort was now made in Congress to prohibit the 
extension of slavery to the territory acquired from 
Mexico, at the time of forming territorial governments. 
Mr. Calhoun contributed with all his might and zeal in 
resisting every effort of this character, and on the 27th 
of June, 1848, he made an able speech in reply to Mr. 
Dix of New York, on the bill providing a territorial 
government for Oregon, which it was proposed to 
amend, so as forever to exclude slavery therefrom. He 
denied that Congress had the exclusive right of lesrisla- 
tion over the territories, and insisted that it could not, 
by its action, take away from the people the power of 
making such municipal regulations as they pleased, 
when state constitutions were adopted. He also de- 
fended the institution of Slavery, but at the same time 
contended, that the abstract question of Slavery was 



1848.] THE SLAVERY aUESTION. 413 

merged in the higher one of self-defence on the part 
of the southern states. The North, he said, was bent 
on securing the balance of power, and that once gained, 
abolitionism would break down the ramparts of the 
Constitution, and the rights of the states would no 
longer be respected. At the session of 1847-8, the 
Slavery question prevented the passage of territorial 
bills ; but at the ensuing session the subject was again 
agitated. 

In the meantime the presidential election had taken 
place, and the Whig candidate, General Taylor, who 
refused to commit himself on the question, was elected 
over General Cass, the Republican nominee, who had 
opposed the efforts of the Slavery exclusionists. Mr. 
Calhoun was much chagrined at this result, and when 
Congress came together in December, 1818, he advised 
a meeting of the members from the slaveholding states 
to be held, to deliberate on the course proper to be 
pursued. His advice w r as followed; a meeting was held ; 
and an address prepared by him was adopted, which 
reviewed the origin and history of the abolition move- 
ment, and the aggressions upon the rights of the South, 
and pointed out the evils which must result, and the 
necessity of united and harmonious action to prevent 
them. This session also passed by without a settlement 
of the question, and in the summer of 1849, Mr. Cal- 
houn had occasion again to make known his opinions, 
in an address to the people of the southern states, dated 
at Fort Hill on the 15th of July, in reply to a speech 
of Colonel Benton to his constituents in Missouri, 
charging the former with having repeatedly abandoned 
the interests of the South, and with endeavoring to 



414 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1849. 

promote the dissolution of the Union. Mr. Calhoun 
defended himself with more than his usual ability, and 
sometimes with not a little asperity. He retraced his 
whole course in public life, and insisted that he had 
ever been, as he ever should be, firm in maintaining 
the rights of the slaveholding states under the com- 
promises of the Constitution, and faithful to the Union 
so long as it could be preserved in the spirit of its in- 
ception. 

When Congress again came together, Mr. Calhoun 
was in feeble health, in consequence of a pulmonary 
complaint of long standing which had been for some 
time growing upon him more rapidly than it had done, 
for the reason probably, that his mind was kept in a 
constant state of excitement by the agitation of the 
slavery question. Meanwhile California had adopted 
a state constitution prohibiting slavery, and now ap- 
plied for admission into the Union, supported by a favor- 
able recommendation of the president, General Taylor. 
The elements of controversy were at once roused up 
more fiercely than before, and the confederacy seemed 
about to be violently ruptured. Various propositions 
were offered with the hope of settling the difficulty for- 
ever, and among others, Mr. Clay offered a series of 
resolutions as a compromise, or an amicable arrange- 
ment of the questions in controversy. The general fea- 
tures of Mr. Clay's plan were, — the admission of Cali- 
fornia; the formation of territorial governments for the 
remainder of the territory acquired from Mexico, with- 
out containing any provision whatsoever in regard to 
slavery ; declaring that the abolition of slavery in the 
district of Columbia was inexpedient, that the trade in 



1850.] LAST SPEECH. 415 

slaves brought from without the district ought to be 
prohibited therein, but that Congress possessed no power 
to obstruct the slave trade between the states ; and the 
more effectual provision by law for the restitution of 
fugitive slaves. 

Mr. Calhoun had convinced himself, that if California 
were admitted as a state, and the balance of power thus 
assured to the non-slaveholding states, there would be 
no security for the south without an amendment of the 
Constitution. Day after day, in the early part of the 
session, he took his place punctually in the Senate, until 
his failing strength warned him that the hand of the 
destroyer was already upon him. He then retired to 
his room, and there prepared the following speech — the 
last great effort of his powerful mind. Unable to deliver 
it himself, it was read in his presence by his colleague, 
Judge Butler, on the 4th day of March, 1850:— 

SPEECH ON THE SLAVERY aUESTION. 

I have, Senators, believed from the first, that the agitation of the sub- 
ject of slavery would, if not prevented by some timely and effective 
measure, end in disunion. Entertaining this opinion, I have, on all 
proper occasions, endeavored to call the attention of both of the two 
great parties which divide the country, to adopt some such measure to 
prevent so great a disaster, but without success. The agitation has 
been permitted to proceed, with almost no attempt to resist it, until it 
has reached a period when it can no longer be disguised or denied that 
the Union is in danger. You have thus had forced upon you the great- 
est and the gravest question that ever can come under your considera- 
tion, How can the Union be preserved ? 

To give a satisfactory answer to this mighty question, it is indispen- 
sable to have an accurate and thorough knowledge of the nature and 
the character of the cause by which the Union is endangered. Without 
such knowledge it is impossible to pronounce, with any certainty, by 



416 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1850. 

■what means it can be saved ; just as it would be impossible for a ph}'- 
sician to pronounce, in the case of some dangerous disease, with any 
certainty by what remedy the patient could be saved, without similar 
knowledge of the nature and character of the cause of the disease. The 
first question, then, presented for consideration, in the investigation I 
propose, in order to obtain such knowledge, is, — What is it that has en- 
dangered the Union ? 

To this question, there can be but one answer — that the immediate 
cause is. the almost universal discontent which pervades all the States 
composing the Southern section of the Union. This widely extended 
discontent is not of recent origin. It commenced with the agitation of 
the slavery question, and has been increasing ever since. The next 
question is, — What has caused this wide-diffused and almost universal 
discontent \ 

It is a great mistake to suppose, as is by some, that it originated with 
demagogues, who excited the discontent with the intention of aiding 
their personal advancement, or with disappointed, ambitious individuals, 
who resorted to it as the means of raising their fallen fortunes. There 
is no foundation for this opinion. On the contrary, all the great politi- 
cal influences of the section were arrayed against excitement, and exert- 
ed to the utmost to keep the people quiet. The great mass of the peo- 
ple of the South were divided, as in the other section, into whigs and 
democrats. The leaders and the presses of both parties in the South 
■were very solicitous to prevent excitement and restore quiet ; because 
it was seen that the effects of the former would necessarily tend to 
weaken, if not destroy, the political ties which united them with their 
respective parties in the other section. Those who know the strength 
of party ties, w r ill readily appreciate the immense force which this cause 
exerted against agitation, and in favor of preserving quiet. But as 
great as it was, it was not sufficiently so to prevent the wide-spread dis- 
content which now pervades the section. No ; some cause far deeper 
and more powerful must exist, to produce a discontent so wide and 
deep, than the one inferred. The question then recurs, what is the 
cause of this discontent ? It will be found in the belief of the people of 
the Southern States, as prevalent as the discontent itself, that they 
cannot remain, as things now are, consistently with honor and safety, in 
the Union. The next question, then, to be considered is, — What has 
caused this belief? 

One of the causes is, undoubtedly, to be traced to the long-continued 



1850.] ' LAST SPEECH. 417 

agitation of the slave question on the part of the North, and the many- 
aggressions which they have made on the rights of the South, during 
that time. I will not enumerate them at present, as it will be done 
hereafter in its proper place. 

There is another, lying back of it, but with which this is intimately 
connected, that may be regarded as the great and primary cause. It is 
to be found in the fact, that the equilibrium between the two sections 
in the government, as it stood when the Constitution was ratified, and 
the government put in action, has been destroyed. At that time, there 
was nearly a perfect equilibrium between the two, which afforded ample 
means to each to protect itself against the aggression of the other ; but 
as it now stands, one section has exclusive power of controlling the gov- 
ernment, which leaves the other without any adequate means of pro- 
tecting itself against its encroachment and oppression. To place this 
subject distinctly before you, I have, Senators, prepared a brief statisti- 
cal statement, showing the relative weight of the two sections in the 
government under the first census of 1790, and the last census of 1840. 

According to the former, the population of the United States, includ- 
ing Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee, which then were in their incip- 
ient condition of becoming States, but were not actually admitted, 
amounted to 3,929,827. Of this number, tbe Northern States had 
1,977,899, and the Southern 1,952,072, making a difference of only 
25,827 in favor of the former States. The number of States, including 
Vermont, Kentucky and Tennessee, was sixteen, of which eight, includ- 
ing Vermont, belonged to the Northern section, and eight, including 
Kentucky and Tennessee, to the Southern, making an equal division of 
the States between the two sections, under the first census. There was 
a small preponderance in the House of Representatives, and in the elec- 
toral college, in favor of the Northern, owing to the fact that, according 
to the provisions of the Constitution, in estimating federal numbers, five 
slaves count but three ; but it was too small to affect sensibly the per- 
fect equilibrium of numbers which, with that exception, existed at that 
time — a true, perfect equilibrium. Such was the equality of the two 
sections when the States composing them agreed to enter into a federal 
Union. Since then, the equilibrium between them has been greatly 
disturbed. 

According to the last census, the aggregate population of the United 
States amounted to 17,063,357, of which the Northern section contained 
9,728,920, and the Southern 7,334,437, making a difference, in round 

18* 



418 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1850- 

numbers, of 2,400,000. The number of States had increased from six- 
teen to twenty-six, making an addition of ten States. In the mean 
time, the position of Delaware had become doubtful, as to which section 
she properly belonged. Considering her as neutral, the Northern States 
will have thirteen, and the Southern States twelve, making a difference 
in the Senate of two Senators in favor of the former. According to the 
apportionment under the census of 1840, there were 223 members of 
the House of Representatives, of which the Northern States had 135, 
and the Southern States, (considering Delaware as neutral) 87 ; making 
a difference in favor of the former, in the House of Representatives, of 
48 ; the difference in the Senate of two members added to this, gives to 
the North, in the electoral college, a majority of 50. Since the census of 
1840, four States have been added to the Union; Iowa, Wisconsin, 
Florida, and Texas. They leave the difference in the Senate as it stood 
when the census was taken, but add two to the side of the North in the 
House, making the present majority in the House in its favor, of 50, and 
in the electoral college, of 52. 

The result of the whole is to give the Northern section a predominance 
in every department of the government, and thus concentrate in it the 
two elements which constitute the federal government — majority of 
States, and a majority of their population, estimated in federal numbers. 
Whatever section concentrates the two in itself, must possess control of 
the entire government. 

But we are just at the close of the sixth decade, and the commence- 
ment of the seventh. The census is to be taken this year, which must 
add greatly to the decided preponderance of the North in the House of 
Representatives, and in the electoral college. The prospect is, also, that 
a great increase will be added to its present preponderance during the 
period of the decade, by the addition of new States. Two territories — 
Oregon and Minnesota — are already in progress, and strenuous efforts 
are making to bring in three additional States from the territory 
recently conquered from Mexico, which, if successful, will add three 
other States in a short time to the Northern section, making five States 
and increasing its present number of States from 15 to 20, and of its 
Senators from 30 to 40. On the contrary, there is not a single territory 
in progress in the Southern section, and no certainty that any additional 
State will be added to it during the decade. The prospect then is, that 
the two sections in the Senate, should the efforts now made to exclude 
the South from the newly conquered territories succeed, will stand, 



1850.] LAST SPEECH. 419 

before the end of the decade, twenty Northern States to twelve Southern 
(conceding Delaware as neutral), and forty Northern Senators to twenty- 
four Southern. This great increase of Senators, added to the great in- 
crease of members of the House of Representatives, and electoral 
college, on the part of the North, which must take place upon the next 
decade, will effectually and eventually destroy the equilibrium which 
existed when the government commenced. 

Had this destruction been the operation of time, without the interfer- 
ence of government, the South would have had no reason to complain ; 
but such was not the fact. It was caused by the legislation of this 
government, which was appointed as the common agent of all, and 
charged with the protection of the interests and security of all. The 
legislation by which it has been effected may be classed under three 
heads. The first is that series of acts by which the South has been 
excluded from the common territory belonging to ail of the States, as 
(he members of the federal Union, which has had the effect of extending 
vastly the portion allotted to the Northern section, and restricting 
within narrow limits the portion left the South. The next consists in 
adopting a system of revenue and disbursements by which an undue 
proportion of the burthen of taxation has been imposed upon the South, 
and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North ; and 
the last in a system of political measures by which the original charac- 
ter of the government has been radically changed. 

I propose to bestow upon each of these, in the order they stand, a few 
remarks, with the view of showing that it is owing to the action of this 
government, that the equilibrium between the two sections has been de- 
stroyed, and the whole power of the system centred in a sectional 
majority. 

The first of the series of acts by which the South was deprived of its 
due share of the territories, originated with the confederacy, which pre- 
ceded the existence of this government. It is to be found in the 
provisions of the ordinance of 1787. Its effect was to exclude the South 
entirely from that vast and fertile region which lies between the Ohio 
and the Mississippi, now embracing five States and one Territory. The 
next of the series is the Missouri compromise, which excluded the South 
from that large portion of Louisiana which lies north of 36° 30', excepting 
what is included in the State of Missouri. The last of the series 
excludes the South from the whole of the Oregon Territory. All these, 
in the slang of the day, were what is called slave territory, and not free 



420 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1850. 

soil ; that is, territories belonging to slave-holding powers, and open to 
the emigration of masters with their slaves. By these several acts, the 
South was excluded from 1,238,025 square miles, an extent of country 
considerably exceeding the entire valley of the Mississippi. To the 
South was left the portion of the territory of Louisiana lying south of 
36° SO', and the portion north of it included in the State of Missouri ; the 
portion lying south of 36° 30', includes the States of Louisiana and 
Arkansas, and the territory lying west of the latter and south of 3G° 30', 
called the Indian country. A portion lying south of this, with the 
territory of Florida, now the State, makes m the whole 283,503 square 
miles. To this must be added the territory acquired with Texas. If 
the whole should be added to the Southern section, it would make an 
increase of 325,520, which would make the whole left to the South 
609,023. • But a large part of Texas is still in contest between the two 
sections, which leaves uncertain what will be the real extent of the por- 
tion of her territory that may be left to the South. 

I have not included the territory recently acquired by the treaty 
with Mexico. The North is making the most strenuous efforts to ap- 
propriate the whole to herself, by excluding the South from every foot 
of it. If she should succeed, it will add to that from which Southern 
laws have already been excluded, 52*7,0*78 square miles, and would in- 
crease the whole the North has appropriated to herself, to 1,764,023, 
not including the portion which she may succeed in excluding us from 
in Texas. To sum up the whole, the United States, since they declared 
their independence, have acquired 2,373,046 square miles of territory, 
from which the North will have excluded the South, if she should suc- 
ceed in monopolizing the newly acquired territories, about three fourths 
of the whole, and leave the South but about one fourth. 

Such is the first and great cause that has destroyed the equilibrium 
between the two sections in the government. 

The next is the system of revenue and disbursements which has been 
adopted by the government. It is well known that the main source 
from which the government has derived its revenue, is from duties on 
imports. I shall not undertake to show that all such duties must 
necessarily fall mainly on the exporting States, and that the South, as 
the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly 
more than her due proportion of the revenue, because I deem it un- 
necessary, as the subject has on so many occasions been fully discussed. 
Nor shall I, for the same reason, undertake to show, that a far greater 



1850.1 LAST SPEECH. 421 



portion of the revenue has been disbursed at the North than its due 
share ; and that the joint effect of these causes has been to transfer a 
vast amount from the South to the North, which, under an equal sys- 
tem of revenue and disbursement, would not have been lost to her. If 
to this be added, that many of the duties were imposed, not for reve- 
nue, but for protection, that is, intended to put money, not into the treas- 
ury, but directly into the pocket of the manufacturers, some concep- 
tion may be formed of the immense amount which in the long course 
of so many years has been transferred from the South to the North. 
There is no data by which it can be estimated with any certainty ; but, 
it is safe to say, that it amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars. 
Under the most moderate estimate, it would be sufficient to add greatly 
to the wealth of the North, and by that greatly increase her popula- 
tion, by attracting emigration from all quarters in that direction. 

This, combined with the great and primary cause, amply explains 
why the North has acquired a preponderance over every department 
of the government, by its disproportionate increase of population and 
States. The former, as has been shown, has increased, in fifty years, 
2,400,000 over that of the South. This increase of population, during 
so long a period, is satisfactorily accounted for by the number of emi- 
grants, and the increase of their descendants, which has been attracted 
to the northern section from Europe and the southern section, in conse- 
quence of the advantages derived from the causes assigned. If they 
had not existed— if the South had retained all the capital which has 
been extracted from her by the fiscal action of the government, and if 
they had not been excluded, by the ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri 
compromise, from the region lying between the Ohio and the Missis- 
sippi, and between the Mississippi and the Rocky Mountains, north of 
36° 30', it scarcely admits of a doubt that she would have divided the 
emigration with the North, and by retaining her own people, would 
have at least equalled the North in population, under the census of 
1840, and probably under that about to be taken. She would, also, if 
she had retained her equal rights in those territories, have maintained 
an equality in the number of States with the North, and have pre- 
served the equilibrium between the two sections that existed at the 
commencement of the government. The loss, then, of the equilibrium 
is to be attributed to the action of this government. 

But while these measures were destroying the equilibrium between 
the two sections, the action of the government was leading to a radical 



422 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1850. 

change iu its character, by concentrating all the power of the system 
in itself. The occasion will not permit me to trace the measures by 
which this great change has been consummated. If it did, it would 
not be difficult to show, that the process commenced at an early period 
of the government ; that it proceeded almost without interruption, step 
by step, until it absorbed, virtually, its entire powers. "Without, how- 
ever, going though the whole process to establish the fact, it may be 
done satisfactorily by a very short statement. 

That this government claims, and practically maintains the right to 
decide in the last resort, as to the extent of its powers, will scarcely be 
denied by any one conversant with the political history of the country, 
is equally certain. That it also claims the right to resort to force, to 
maintain whatever power she claims against all opposition. Indeed, it 
is apparent from what we daily hear, that this has become the prevail- 
ing and fixed opinion of a great majority of the community. Now, I 
ask, what limitation can possibly be placed upon the powers of a govern- 
ment, claiming and exercising such rights ? And, if none can be, how 
can the separate government of the States maintain and protect the 
powers reserved to them by the Constitution, or the people of the several 
States maintain those which are reserved to them, and among them, 
their sovereign powers, by which they ordained and established, not 
only their separate State constitutions and governments, but also the 
constitution and government of the United States ? But if they have 
no constitutional means of maintaining them against the right claimed 
by this government, it necessarily follows, that they hold them at its 
pleasure and discretion, and that all the powers of the system are, in 
reality, concentrated in it. It also follows, that the character of the 
government has been changed in consequence, from a federal republic, 
as it originally came from the hands of its framers, and that it has been 
changed into a great national consolidated democracy. It has, indeed, 
at present, all the characteristics of the latter, and not one of the former, 
although it still retains its outward form. 

The result of the whole of these causes combined, is that the North 
has acquired a decided ascendency over every department of this govern- 
ment, and, through it, a control over all the powers of the system. A 
single section, governed by the will of the numerical majority, has now, 
in fact, the control of the government, and the entire powers of the sys- 
tem. What was once a constitutional federal republic, is now converted, 
in reality, into one as absolute as that of the Autocrat of Russia, and 



1850.] 



LAST SPEECH. 423 



as despotic in its tendency as any absolute government that ever 
existed. 

As, then, the North has the absolute control over the government, it is 
manifest, that on all questions between it and the South, where there is 
a diversity of interests, the interest of the latter will be sacrificed to the 
former, however oppressive the effects may be, as the South possesses 
no means by which it can resist, through the action of the government. 
But if there were no questions of vital importance to the South, in ref- 
erence to which there was a diversity of views between the two sections, 
this state of things might be endured, without the hazard of destruction 
by the South. But such is not the fact. There is a question of vital 
importance to the Southern section, in reference to which the views and 
feelings of the two sections are opposite and hostile as they can possi- 
bly be. 

I refer to the relations between the two races in the Southern section, 
which constitutes a vital portion of her social organization. Every por- 
tion of the North entertains views and feelings more or less hostile to 
it. Those most opposed and hostile regard it as a sin, and consider 
themselves under the most sacred obligation to use every effort to de- 
stroy it. Indeed, to the extent that they conceive they have power, 
they regard themselves as implicated in the sin, and responsible for 
suppressing it, by the use of all and every means. Those less opposed 
and hostile regard it as a crime — an offence against humanity, as they 
call it, and although not so fanatical, feel themselves bound to use all 
efforts to effect the same object. While those who are least opposed 
and hostile, regard it as a blot and a stain on the character of what they 
call the nation, and feel themselves accordingly bound to give it no 
countenance or support. On the contrary, the Southern section regards 
the relation as one which cannot be destroyed without subjecting the 
two races to the greatest calamity, and the section to poverty, desola- 
tion, and wretchedness, and accerdingly feel bound, by every considera- 
tion of interest, safety and duty, to defend it. 

This hostile feeling on the part of the North toward the social organi- 
zation of the South, long lay dormant ; but it only required some cause, 
which would make the impression on those who felt most intensely that 
they were responsible for its continuance, to call it into action. The in- 
creasing power of this government, and of the control of the Northern 
section over all of it, furnished the cause. It was they made an im- 
pression on the minds of many, that there was little or no restraint to 



424 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1850. 

prevent the government to do whatever it might choose to do. This 
was sufficient of itself to put the most fanatical portion of the North in 
action, for the purpose of destroying the existing relation between the 
two races in the South. 

The first organized movement towards it commenced in 1835. Then 
for the first time societies were organized, presses established, lecturers 
sent forth to excite the people of the North, and incendiary publications 
scattered over the whole South through the mail. The South was 
thoroughly aroused ; meetings were held everywhere, and resolutions 
adopted, calling upon the North to apply a remedy to arrest the threat- 
ened evil, and pledging themselves to adopt measures for their own 
protection if it was not arrested. At the meeting of Congress petitions 
poured in from the North, calling upon Congress to abolish slavery in 
the District of Columbia, and to prohibit what they called the internal 
slave trade between the States, avowing at the same time, that their 
ultimate object was to abolish slavery not only in the District, but in the 
States and throughout the Union. At this period, the number engaged 
in the agitation was small, and it possessed little or no personal influence. 

Neither party in Congress had, at that time, any sympathy with them 
or their cause ; the members of each party presented their petitions 
with great reluctance. Nevertheless, as small and as contemptible as 
the party then was, both of the great parties of the North dreaded 
them. They felt that though small, they were organized, in reference 
to a subject which had a great and a commanding influence over the 
northern mind. Each party on that account, feared to oppose their 
petitions, lest the opposite party should take advantage of the one who 
opposed by favoring them. The effect was, that both united in insist- 
ing that the petitions should be received, and Congress take jurisdiction 
of the subject for which they prayed; and to justify their course, took 
the extraordinary ground that Congress was bound to receive petitions 
on every subject, however objectionable it might be, and whether they 
had, or had not, jurisdiction over the subject. These views prevailed 
in the House of Representatives, and partially in the Senate, and thus 
the party succeeded, in their first movement, in gaining what they pro- 
posed — a position in Congress, from which the agitation could be ex- 
tended over the whole Union. This was the commencement of the 
agitation, which has ever since continued, and which, as it is now ac- 
knowledged, has endangered the Union itself. 

As to myself, I believed, at that early period, that, if the party who 



1850.] LAST SPEECH. 425 

got up the petitions should succeed in getting Congress to take juris- 
diction, that agitation would follow, and that it would, in the end, if not 
arrested, destroy the Union. I then so expressed myself in debate, and 
called upon both parties to take grounds against taking jurisdiction, but 
in vain. Had my voice been heard, and Congress refused taking juris- 
diction by the united votes of all parties, the agitation which followed 
would have been prevented, and the fanatical movements accompanying 
the agitation, which have brought U3 to our present perilous condition, 
would have become extinct, for the want of something to feed the flame. 
That was the time for the North to show her devotion to the Union ; 
but, unfortunately, both of the great parties of that section were so in- 
tent on obtaining or retaining party ascendency, that all other consider- 
ations were overlooked or forgotten. 

What has since followed, are but natural consequences. "With the 
success of their first movement, this small fanatical party began to ac- 
quire strength, and with that, to become an object of courtship of both 
of the great parties. The necessary consequence was, a farther increase 
of power, and a gradual tainting of the opinions of both of the other 
parties with their doctrines, until the infection has extended over both, 
and the great mass of the population of the North, who, whatever may 
be their opinion of the original abolition party, which still keeps up its 
distinctive organization, hardly ever fail, when it comes to acting, to co- 
operate in carrying out their measures. With the increase of their 
influence, they extend the sphere of their action. In a short period 
after they had commenced their first movement, they had acquired 
sufficient influence to induce the legislatures of most of the northern 
states to pass acts, which, in effect, abrogated the provision of the Con- 
stitution that provides for the delivering up of fugitive slaves. Not 
long after, petitions followed to abolish slavery in forts, magazines and 
dockyards, and all other places where Congress had exclusive power 
of legislation. This was followed by petitions, and resolutions of legis- 
latures of the Northern States, and popular meetings, to exclude the 
Southern States from all territories acquired, or to be acquired, and to 
prevent the admission of any state hereafter into the Union, which, by 
its constitution, does not prohibit slavery. And Congress is invoked to 
do all this, expressly with the view of the final abolition of slavery in 
the states. That has been avowed to be the ultimate object, from the 
beginning of the agitation until the present time, and yet the great body 
of both parties of the North, with the full knowledge of the fact, 



426 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1850. 

although disowning the abolitionists, have cooperated with them in 
almost all their measures. 

Such is a brief history of the agitation, as far as it has yet advanced. 
Now, I ask, Senators, what is there to prevent its further progress, until 
it fulfils the ultimate end proposed, unless some decisive measure should 
be adopted to prevent it ? Has any one of the causes, which has added 
to its increase from its original small and contemptible beginning, until 
it has attained its present magnitude, diminished in force ? Is the ori- 
ginal cause of the movement — that slavery is a sin, and ought to be 
suppressed — weaker now than at the commencement ? or is the abolition 
party less numerous or influential \ or have they less influence over 
elections ? or less control over the two great parties of the North in 
elections ? or has the South greater means of influencing or controlling 
the movements of this government now than it had when the agitation 
commenced ? To all these questions but one answer can be given. No. 
No. No. The very reverse is true. Instead of weaker, all the ele- 
ments in favor of agitation are stronger now than they were in 1835, 
when the agitation first commenced. While all the elements of influ- 
ence on the part of the South are weakened, I again ask, what is to 
stop this agitation, unless something decisive is done, until the great and 
final object at which it aims — the abolition of slavery in the South — is 
consummated ? Is it, then, not certain, that if something decisive is 
not now done to arrest it, the South will be forced to choose between 
abolition or secession ? Indeed, as events are now moving, it will not 
require the South to secede, to dissolve the Union ; agitation will of 
itself effect it, of which its past history furnishes abundant proof, as I 
shall next proceed to show. 

It is a great mistake to suppose that disunion can be effected by a 
single blow. The cords which bound these states together in one com- 
mon union, are far too numerous and powerful for that. Disunion must 
be the work of time. It is only through a long process and in succes- 
sion, that the cords can snap, until the whole fabric falls asunder. Al- 
ready, the agitation of the slavery question has snapped some of the 
most important, and has greatly weakened all the others, as I shall 
proceed to show. 

The cords that bind the states together are not only many, but various 
in character. Among them, some are spiritual or ecclesiastical ; some 
political ; others social ; others appertain to the benefits conferred by 
the Union ; and others to the feeling of duty and obligation. 



1850.] LAST SPEECH. 427 






The strongest of those of a spiritual and ecclesiastical nature, con- 
sisted in the unity of the great religious denominations, all of which 
originally embraced the Union. All these denominations, with the ex- 
ception, perhaps, of the Catholics, were organized very much upon the 
principle of our political institutions. Beginning with smaller meetings, 
corresponding with the political divisions of the country, their organiza- 
tion terminated in one great central assemblage, corresponding very 
much with the character of Congress. At these meetings, the principal 
clergymen and lay members of the respective denominations from all 
parts of the Union met, to transact business relating to their common 
concerns. It was not confined to what appertained to the doctrines and 
disciplines of the respective denominations, but extended to plans for 
disseminating the Bible, establishing missionaries, distributing tracts, 
and of establishing presses for the publication of tracts, newspapers 
and periodicals, with a view of diffusing religious information, and for 
the support of the doctrines and creeds of the denomination. All this 
combined, contributed greatly to strengthen the bonds of the Union. 
The strong ties which held each denomination together, formed a strong 
cord to hold the whole Union together ; but, as powerful as they were, ■ 
they have not been able to resist the explosive effect of slavery agita- 
tion. 

The first of these cords which snapped under its explosive force, was 
that of the powerful Methodist Episcopal Church. The numerous .and 
strong ties which held it together are all broke, and its unity gone. 
They now form separate churches, and instead of that feeling of attach- 
ment and devotion to the interests of the whole church, which was 
formerly felt, they are now arrayed into two hostile bodies, engaged in 
litigation about what was formerly their common property. 

The next cord that snapped was that, of the Baptists, one of the 
largest and most respectable of the denominations ; that of the Presby- 
terians is not entirely snapped, but some of its strands have given way ; 
that of the Episcopal church is the only one of the four great Protestant 
denominations which remain unbroken and entire. • The strongest cord 
of a political character consists of the many and strong ties that have 
held together the two great parties, which have, with some modifications, 
existed from the beginning of the government. They both extended to 
every portion of the Union, and had strongly contributed to hold all its 
parts together. But this powerful cord has proved no better than the 
spiritual. It resisted for a long time the explosive tendency of the 



428 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1850. 

agitation, but has finally snapped under its force — if not entirely, nearly 
so. ]N T or is there one of the remaining cords which has not been greatly 
weakened. To this extent the Union has already been destroyed by 
agitation, in the only way it can be, by snapping asunder and weakening 
the curds which bind it together. 

If the agitation goes on, the same force acting with increased intensity, 
as has been shown, there will be nothing left to hold the States together, 
except force. But surely, that can with no propriety of language be 
called a Union, when the only means by which the weaker is held 
connected with the stronger portion, is force. It may, indeed, keep 
them connected, but the connection will partake much more of the 
character of subjugation on the part of the weaker to the stronger, than 
the union of free, independent and sovereign States in one federal union, 
as they stood in the early stages of the government, and which only is 
worthy of the sacred name of Union. 

Having now, Senators, explained what it is that endangers the Union, 
and traced it to its cause, and explained its nature and character, the 
great question again recurs, How can the Union be saved ? To this I 
answer, there is but one way by which it can be, and that is, by adopt- 
ing such measures as will satisfy the States belonging to the Southern 
section that they can remain in the Union consistently with their honor 
and their safety. There is, again, only one way by which that can be 
effected, and that is by reviewing the causes by which this belief has 
been produced. Do that, and discontent will cease, harmony and kind 
feelings between the sections be restored, and every apprehension of 
danger to the Union removed. The question then is, By what means 
can this be done ? But before I undertake to answer this question, I 
propose to show by what it cannot be done. 

It cannot, then, be done by eulogies on the Union, however splendid 
or numerous. The cry of Union ! Union ! the glorious Union ! can no 
more prevent disunion, than the cry of health ! health ! glorious health ! 
on the part of the physician, can save a patient lying dangerously ill. 
So long as the Union, instead of being regarded as a protector, is regar- 
ded in the opposite character by not much less than a majority of the 
States, it will be in vain to attempt to concentrate them by pronouncing 
eulogies on it. 

Besides, this cry of Union comes commonly from those whom we 
cannot, believe to be sincere. It usually comes from our assailants; 
but we cannot believe them to be sincere : for if they loved the Union, 



1850.] LAST SPEECH. 429 

they would necessarily be devoted to the Constitution. It made the 
Union, and to destroy the Constitution, would be to destroy the Union. 
But the only reliable and certain evidence of devotion to the Constitution 
is, to abstain, on the one hand, from violating it, and to repel, on the 
other, all attempts to violate it. It is only by faithfully performing 
those high duties, that the Constitution can be preserved, and with it the 
Union. 

But how then stands the profession of devotion to the Union by our 
assailants, when brought to this test ? Have they abstained from viola- 
ting the Constitution ? Let the many acts passed by the Northern 
States to set aside and annul the clause of the Constitution providing for 
the delivery of fugitive slaves, answer. I cite this, not that it is the 
only instance (for there are many others), but because the violation, in 
this particular, is too notorious and palpable to be denied. Again, have 
they stood forth faithfully to repel violations of the Constitution ? Let 
their course in reference to the agitation of the slavery question, which 
was commenced and has been carried on, for fifteen years, avowedly 
for the purpose of abolishing slavery in the States — an object all 
acknowledged to be unconstitutional — answer. Let them show a single 
instance, during this long period, in which they have denounced the 
agitators, or their many attempts to effect what is admitted to be un- 
constitutional, or a single measure which they have brought forward for 
that purpose. How can we, with all these facts before us, believe that 
they are sincere in their profession of devotion to the Union, or avoid 
believing that by assuming the cloak of patriotism, their profession is 
but intended to increase the vigor of their assaults, and to weaken the 
force of our resistance ? 

Nor can we regard the profession of devotion to the Union, on the 
part of those who are not our assailants, as sincere, when they pronox:nce 
eulogies upon the Union evidently with the intent of charging tis with 
disunion, without uttering one word of denunciation against our assail- 
ants. If friends of the Union, their course should be to unite with us in 
repelling these assaults, and denouncing the authors as enemies of the 
Union. Why they avoid this and pursue the course they obviously do, 
it is for them to explain. 

Nor can the Union bo saved by invoking the name of the illustrious 
Southerner, whose mortal remains repose on the western bank of the 
Potomac. He was one of us — a slaveholder and a planter. We have 
studied his history, and find nothing in it to justify submission to 



430 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1850. 

wrong. On the contrary, his great fame rests on the solid foundation, 
that while he was careful to avoid doing wrong to others, he was 
prompt and decided in repelling wrong. I trust that, in this respect, 
we profited by his example. 

Nor can we find anything in his history to deter us from seceding 
from the Union, should it fail to fulfil the objects for which it was in- 
stituted, by being permanently and hopelessly converted into the means 
of oppression instead of protection. On the contrary, we find much in 
his example to encourage us, should we be forced to the extremity of 
deciding between submission and disunion. 

There existed then as well as now, a union — that between the parent 
country and her then colonies. It was a union that had much to en- 
dear it to the people of the colonies. Under its protecting and super- 
intending care, the colonies were planted, and grew up and prospered 
through a long course of years, until they became populous and 
wealthy. Its benefits were not limited to them. Their extensive agri- 
cultural and other productions gave birth to a flourishing commerce, 
which richly rewarded the parent country for the trouble and expense 
of establishing and protecting them. Washington was born and nur- 
tured, and grew up to manhood under that union. He acquired his 
early distinction in its service ; and there is every reason to believe 
that he was devotedly attached to it. But his devotion was a rational 
one. He was attached to it, not as an end, but as a means to an end. 
When it failed to fulfil its end, and, instead of affording protection, was 
converted into the means of oppressing the colonies, he did not hesi- 
tate to draw his sword and head the great movement by which that 
union was forever severed, and the independence of these States estab- 
lished. This was the great and crowning glory of his life, which has 
spread his fame over the whole globe, and will transmit it to the latest 
posterity. 

Nor can the plan proposed by the distinguished Senator from Ken- 
tucky, nor that of the administration, save the Union. I shall pass by, 
without remark, the plan proposed by the Senator, and proceed directly 
to the consideration of that of the administration. I however assure 
the distinguished and able Senator, that in taking this course, no disre- 
spect whatever is intended to him or to his plan. I have adopted it, be- 
cause so many Senators of distinguished abilities, who were present 
when he delivered his speech and explanation of his plan, and who were 
fully capable to do justice to the side they support, have replied to him. 



1850.] LAST SPEECH. 431 

The plan of the administration cannot save the Union, because it 
can have no effect towards satisfying the States composing the southern 
section of the Union, that they can consistently with safety and honor 
remain in the Union. It is, in fact, but a modification of the Wilmot 
proviso. It proposes to effect the same object — to exclude the South 
from all the territory acquired by the Mexican treaty. It is well 
known, that the South is united against the Wilmot proviso, and has 
committed itself by solemn resolutions to resist, should it be adopted. 
Its opposition is not to the name, but to that which it proposes to effect. 
That the Southern States hold it to be unconstitutional, unjust, incon- 
sistent with their equality as members of the common Uuion, and cal- 
culated to destroy irretrievably, the equilibrium between the two sec- 
tions. These objections equally apply to what, for brevity, I will call 
the Executive proviso. There is no difference between it and the Wil- 
mot, except in the mode of effecting the object ; and in that respect, I . 
must say, that the latter is much the least objectionable. It goes to its 
object openly, boldly, and directly. It claims for Congress unlimited 
power over the territories, and proposes to assert it over the territories 
acquired from Mexico, by a positive prohibition of slavery. Not so the 
executive proviso. It takes an indirect course, and in order to elude 
the Wilmot proviso, and thereby avoid encountering the united and de- 
termined resistance of the South, it denies, by implication, the authority 
of Congress to legislate for the territories, and claims the right as be- 
lono-inff exclusively to the inhabitants of the territories. But to effect 
the object of excluding the South, it takes care, in the meantime, of 
letting in emigrants from the Northern States, and other quarters, ex- 
cept emigrants from the South, which it takes special care to exclude, 
by holding up to them the dread of having their slaves liberated under 
the Mexican laws. The necessary consequence is, to exclude the South 
from the territory, just as effectually as would the Wilmot proviso. 
The only difference in this respect is, that what one proposes to 
effect, directly and openly, the other proposes to effect indirectly and 
covertly. 

But the executive proviso is more objectionable still than the Wil- 
mot, in another and more important particular. The latter, to effect its 
object, inflicts a dangerous wound upon the Constitution, by depriving 
the Southern States, as joint partners and owners of the territories, of 
their rights in them ; but it inflicts no greater wound than is absolutely 
necessary to effect its object. The former, on the contrary, while it 



432 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1850. 

inflicts the same wound, inflicts others equally great, and if possible 
greater, as I shall next proceed to explain. 

In claiming the right for the inhabitants, instead of Congress, to 
legislate over the territories, in the executive proviso, it assumes that 
the sovereignty over the territories is vested in the former ; or, to ex- 
press it in the language used in a resolution oiTered by one of the sena- 
tors from Texas, (Gen. Houston, now absent,) " they have the same in- 
herent right of self-government as the people in the States." The as- 
sumption is utterly false, unconstitutional, without example, and con- 
trary to the entire practice of the government, from its commencement 
to the present time, as I shall next proceed to show. 

The recent movement of individuals in California to form a Consti- 
tution and a state government, and to appoint senators and representa- 
tives, is the first fruit of this monstrous assumption. If the individuals 
who have made this movement, had gone into California as adventurers ; 
and, if as such, they had conquered the territory, and established their 
independence, the sovereignty of the country would have been vested 
in them as a separate and independent community. In that case, they 
would have had the right to form a constitution and to establish a gov- 
ernment for themselves ; and if after that they had thought proper to 
apply to Congress for admission into the Union as a sovereign and in- 
dependent state, all this would have been regular and according to 
established principles. But such is not the case. It was the United 
States who conquered California, and finally acquired it by treaty. 
The sovereignty, of course, is vested in them, and not in the individuals 
who have attempted to form a constitution as a state, without their 
consent. All this is clear beyond controversy, except it can be shown 
that they have since lost or been divested of their sovereignty. 

Nor is it less clear that the power of legislating over the territory is 
vested in Congress, and not, as is assumed, in the inhabitants of the 
territories. None can deny that the Government of the United States 
has the power to acquire territories, either by war or by treaty; 
but if the power to acquire exists, it belongs to Congress to carry it 
into execution. On this point there can he no doubt, for the Constitu- 
tion expressly provides, that Congress shall have power "to make all 
laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution the 
foregoing powers," (those vested in Congress) " and all other powers 
vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or 
in any department or officer thereof." lr matters not, then, where the 



1850.] LAST speech. 433 

power is vested ; for if vested at all in the government of the United 
States or any of its departments or officers, the power carrying it into 
execution is clearly vested in Congress. But this important proviso, 
while it gives to Congress the power of legislating over territories, im- 
poses important restrictions on its exercise, by restricting Congress to 
passing laws necessary and proper for carrying the power into execu- 
tion. The prohibition extends, not only to all laws not suitable or 
appropriate to the object, but also to all that are unjust, unequal or 
unfair, for all such laws would be unnecessary and improper, and, there- 
fore, unconstitutional. 

Having now established, beyond controversy, that the sovereignty 
over the territories is vested in the United States — that is in the several 
States composing the Union — and that the power of legislating over 
them is expressly vested in Congress, it follows that the individuals in 
California who have undertaken to form a constitution and a State, and 
to exercise the power of legislation, without the consent of Congress, 
have usurped the sovereignty of the States and the authority of Con- 
gress, and have acted in open defiance of both. In other words, what 
they have done is revolutionary and rebellious in its character, anarchical 
in its tendency, and calculated to lead to the most dangerous conse- 
quences. Had they acted from premeditation and design, it would 
have been in fact an actual rebellion, but such is not the case. The 
blame lies much less upon them, than upon those who have induced 
them to take a course so unconstitutional and dangerous. They have 
been led into it by language held here, and the course pursued by the 
executive branch of the government. 

I have not seen the answer of the Executive to the calls made by the 
two houses of Congress, for information as to the course which it took, 
or the part which it acted, in reference to what was done in California. 
I understand the answers have not yet been printed. But there is 
enough known to justify the assertion, that those who profess to repre- 
sent and act under the authority of the Executive, have advised, aided, 
and encouraged the movement which terminated in forming what they 
call a constitution and a state. General Riley, who professed to act a3 
civil Governor, called the convention, determined on the number and 
distribution of the delegates, appointed the time and place of its meet- 
ing, was present during the session, and gave its proceedings his appro- 
bation and sanction. If he acted without authority, he ought to have 
been tried, or, at least, reprimanded and disarmed. Neither having 

19 



434 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1850. 

been done, the presumption is that his course has been approved. This, 
of itself, is sufficient to identify the Executive with his acts, and to 
make it responsible for them. I touch not the question whether Gen- 
eral Riley was appointed, or received the instructions under which ha 
professed to act, from the present Executive or its predecessor. If from 
the former, it would implicate the preceding as well as the present ad- 
ministration. If not, the responsibility rests exclusively on the present. 

It is manifest, from this statement, that the Executive Department 
has undertaken to perform acts, preparatory to the meeting of the in- 
dividuals, to form their so called constitution and State government, 
which appertain exclusively to Congress. Indeed, they are identical in 
many respects with the provisions adopted by Congress, when it gives 
permission to a territory to form a constitution and government, in 
order to be admitted as a State into the Union. 

Having now shown that the assumption upon which the Executive 
and the individuals in California acted, throughout this whole affair, is 
informal, unconstitutional, and dangerous, it remains to make a few re- 
marks, in order to show that what has been done is contrary to the 
entire practice of government, from its commencement to the present 

time. 

From its commencement until the time that Michigan was admitted, 
the practice was uniform. Territorial governments were first organized 
by Congress. The government of the United States appointed the 
governors, judges, secretaries, marshals, and other officers, and the in- 
habitants of the territory were represented by legislative bodies, whose 
acts were subject to the revision of Congress. This state of things con- 
tinued until the government of a territory applied to Congress to per- 
mit its inhabitants to form a constitution and government, preparatory 
to admission into the Union. The preliminary act to giving permission 
was to ascertain whether the inhabitants were sufficiently numerous to 
authorize them to be formed into a State. This was done by taking a 
census. That being done, and the number proving sufficient, permission 
was granted. The act granting it, fixed all the preliminaries — the time 
and place of holding the convention ; the qualification of the voters ; 
establishing its boundaries, and all other measures necessary to be set- 
tled previous to admission. The act giving permission necessarily 
withdraws the sovereignty of the United States, and leaves the inhabit- 
ants of the incipient State as free to form their constitution and govern- 
ment as were the original States of the Union after they had declared 



1850.] LAST SPEECH. 435 

their independence. At this stage, the inhabitants of the territory be- 
came for the first time a people, in legal and constitutional language. 
Prior to this they were, by the old acts of Congress, called inhabitants, 
and not people. All this is perfectly consistent with the sovereignty of 
the United States, with the powers of Congress, and with the right of a 
people to self-government. 

Michigan was the first case in which there was any departure from 
the uniform rule of acting. Her3 was a very slight departure from 
established usage. The ordinance of '87 secured to her the right of be- 
coming a State, when she should have 60,000 inhabitants. Owing to 
some neglect Congress delayed taking the census. In the meantime, 
her population increased until it clearly exceeded more than twice the 
number, which entitled her to admission. At this stage, she formed a 
constitution and government without the census being taken by the 
United States, and Congress received the admission without going 
through the formality of taking it, as there was no doubt she had more 
than a sufficient number to entitle her to admission. She was not ad- 
mitted at the first session she applied, owing to some difficulty respect- 
ing the boundary between her and Ohio. The great irregularity, as to 
her admission, took place at the next session, but on a point which can 
have no possible connection with the case of California. 

The irregularity in all other cases that have since occurred, are of a 
similar character. In all, there existed territorial governments estab- 
lished by Congress, with officers appointed by the United States. In 
all, the territorial government took the lead in calling conventions, and 
fixing preliminaries, preparatory to the formation of a constitution and 
admission into the Union. They all recognized the sovereignty of the 
United States, and the authority of Congress over the territories ; and 
whenever there was any departure from established usage, it was done 
on the presumed consent of Congress, and not in defiance of its authori- 
ty, or the sovereignty of the United States over the territories. In this 
respect, California stands alone, without usage, or a single example to 
cover her case. 

It belongs now, Senators, for you to decide what part you will act in 
reference to this unprecedented transaction. The Executive has laid the 
paper purporting to be the constitution of California before you, and 
asks you to admit her into the Union as a State, and the question is, 
will you or will you not admit her ? It is a grave question, and there 
rests upon you a heavy responsibility. Much, very much will depend 



436 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1850. 

upon your decision. If you admit her, you endorse and give your sanc- 
tion to all that has been done. Are you prepared to do so ? Are you 
prepared to surrender your power of legislation for the territories — a 
power expressly vested in Congress by the Constitution, as has been 
fully established ? Can you, consistent with your oath to support the 
Constitution, surrender it ? Are you prepared to admit that the inhabi- 
tants of the territories possess the sovereignty over them ; and that any 
number, more or less, may claim any extent of territory they please ; 
may form a Constitution and government, and erect it into a State, 
without asking your permission ? Are you prepared to surrender the 
sovereignty of the United States over whatever territory may be here- 
after acquired, to the first adventurers who may rush into it \ Are you 
prepared to surrender virtually to the Executive department all the 
powers which you have heretofore exercised over the territories ? If 
not, how can you, consistently with your duty, and your oath to support 
the Constitution, give your assent to the admission of California as a 
State, under a pretended Constitution and government? Can you 
believe, that the project of a Constitution which they have adopted, has 
the least validity ? Can you believe, that there is such a State in 
reality, as the State of California ? No ; there is no such State. It has 
no legal or constitutional existence. It has no validity, and can have 
none, without your sanction. How, then, can you admit it as a State, 
when, according to the provisions of the Constitution, your power is 
limited to admitting new States ? That is, they must be States, exist- 
ing States, independent of your sanction, before you can admit them. 
When you give your permission to the inhabitants of a territory to form 
a Constitution and a State, the Constitution and State they form derive 
their authority from the people, and not from you. The State, before 
admitted, is actually a State, and does not become so by the act of 
admission, as would be the case with California, should you admit her, 
contrary to constitutional provisions and established usage heretofore. 

The Senators on the other side of the chamber must permit me to 
make a few remarks in this connection, particularly applicable to them. 
With the exception of a few Senators from the South, sitting on that 
side of the chamber, when the Oregon question was before this body, 
not two years since, you took, if I mistake not, universally, the ground, 
that Congress had the sole and absolute power of legislating for the 
territories. How, then, can you now, after the short interval which has 
elapsed, abandon the ground which you then took, and thereby virtually 



1850.] LAST SPEECH. 437 

admit that the power of legislating, instead of being in Congress, is in 
the inhabitants of the territories ? How can you justify and sanction by 
your votes the acts of the Executive, which are in direct derogation to 
what you then contended for ? But, to approach still nearer to the 
present time, how can you, after condemning, little more than a year 
since, the grounds taken by the party which you defeated at the last 
election, wheel round and support by your votes the grounds which, as 
explained by the candidate of the party at the last election, are identical 
with those on which the Executive has acted in reference to California ? 
What are we to understand by all this ? Must we conclude that there 
is no sincerity, no faith, in the acts and declarations of public men, and 
that all is mere acting or hollow profession ? or are we to conclude that 
the exclusion of the South from the territories acquired from Mexico is 
an object of so paramount a character in your estimation, that right, 
justice, Constitution, and consistency must all yield, when they stand in 
the way of our exclusion ? 

But, it may be asked, what is to be done with California, should she 
not be admitted ? I answer, remand her back to the territorial condi- 
tion, as was done in the case of Tennessee, in the early stage of the 
government. Congress, in her case, had established a territorial govern- 
ment, in the usual form, with a Governor, Judges, and other officers 
appointed by the United States. She was entitled, under the deed of 
cession, to be admitted into the Union as a State, as soon as she had 
60,000 inhabitants. The territorial government, believing it had that 
number, took a census by which it appeared it exceeded it. She then 
formed a Constitution and a State, and applied for admission. Congress 
refused to admit her, on the grounds that the census should be taken by 
the United States, and that Congress had not determined whether the 
territory should be formed into one or two States, as it was authorized 
to do, under the cession. She returned quietly to her territorial condi- 
tion. An act was passed to take a census by the United States, and 
providing that the territory should form one State. All afterwards was 
regularly conducted, and the territory admitted as a State in due form. 
The irregularities in the case of California are immeasurably greater, 
and afford a much stronger reason for pursuing the same course. But, 
it may be said, California may not submit. That is not probable ; but, 
if she should not, when she refuses, it will then be the time for us to de- 
cide what is to be done. 

Having now shown what cannot save the Union, I return to the quea- 



438 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1850. 

tion with which I commenced — How can the Union be saved ? There 
is but one way by which it can, with any certainty, be saved, and that 
is by a full and final settlement, on the principles of justice, of all the 
questions at issue between the two sections. The South asks for justice, 
simple justice, and less she ought not to tike. She has no compromise 
to offer but the Constitution, and no concessions or surrender to make. 
She has already surrendered so much, that she has little left to surren- 
der. Such a settlement would go to the root of the evil, remove all 
cause of discontent, and satisfy the South that she could remain 
honestly and safely in the Union, and thereby restore the harmony and 
fraternal feelings between the sections, which existed anterior to the 
Missouri agitation. Nothing else can, with any certainty, finally and 
forever settle the question at issue, terminate agitation, and save the 
Union. 

But can this be done ? Yes, easily ; not by the weaker party, for it 
can of itself do nothing — not even protect itself — but by the stronger. 
The North has only to will it, to do justice, and perform her duty, in 
order to accomplish it — to do justice by conceding to the South an 
equal right in the acquired territory ; and to do her duty by causing the 
stipulations relative to fugitive slaves to be faithfully fulfilled — to cease 
the agitation of the slave question, and provide for the insertion of a 
provision in the Constitution by an amendment, which will restore in 
substance the power she possessed of protecting herself before the 
equilibrium between the sections was destroyed by the action of this 
government. There will be no difficulty in devising such a provision — 
one that will protect the South, and which at the same time will improve 
and strengthen the government, instead of impairing or weakening it. 

But will the North agree to this ? It is for her to answer this ques- 
tion. But I will say, she cannot refuse if she has half the love of the 
Union which she professes to have, or without justly exposing herself to 
the charge that her love of power and aggrandizement is far greater 
than her love of the Union. At all events, the responsibility of saving 
the Union is on the North and not the South. The South cannot save 
it by any act of hers, and the North may save it without any sacrifice 
whatever, unless to do justice and to perform her duties under the Con- 
stitution be regarded by her as a sacrifice. 

It is time, Senators, that there should be an open and manly avowal 
on all sides as to what is intended to be done. If the question is not 
now settled, it is uncertain whether it ever can hereafter be, and we, as 



1850.] LAST SPEECH. 439 

the representatives of the States of this Union, regarded as governments, 
should come to a distinct understanding as to our respective views, in 
order to ascertain whether the great questions at issue between the two 
sections can be settled or not. If you who represent the stronger por- 
tion, cannot agree to settle them on the broad principle of justice and 
duty, say so, and let the States we represent agree to separate and part 
in peace. If you are willing we should part in peace, tell us so, and we 
shall know what to do when you reduce the question to submission or 
resistance. If you remain silent, you then compel us to infer what you 
intend. In that case, California will become the test question. If you 
admit her under all the difficulties that oppose her admission, you com- 
pel us to infer, that you intend to exclude us from the whole of the ac- 
quired territories, with the intention of destroying irretrievably the 
equilibrium between the two sections. We would be blind, not to per- 
ceive in that case, that your real objects are power and aggrandizement; 
and infatuated, not to act accordingly. 

I have now, Senators, done my duty, in expressing my opinions fully, 
freely, and candidly on this solemn occasion. In doing so, I have been 
governed by the motives which have governed me in ail the stages of 
the agitation of the slavery question since its commencement, and exert- 
ed myself to arrest it, with the intention of saving the Union, if it could 
be done, and, if it cannot, to save the section where it has pleased Provi- 
dence to cast my lot, and which I sincerely believe has justice and the Con- 
stitution on its side. Having faithfully done my duty to the best of my 
ability, both to the Union and my section, throughout the whole of this 
agitation, I shall have the consolation, let what will come, that I am 
free from all responsibility. 

Mr. Calhoun's position in regard to the necessity of 
amending the Constitution was not generally concurred 
in by the other representatives from the Southern 
States ; but most of them, if not all, agreed with him, 
that the South should not be denied an equal participa- 
tion in the acquired territory, and that the true policy 
of the general government was non-interference, or, in 
other words, that in the formation of territorial govern- 
ments, Congress should have nothing to do with the 



440 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1850. 

question of slavery, but leave the people of the states to 
be formed free to act as they chose. Non-intervention 
being conceded, the owners of slaves would have the 
same right to go to the territories that others would, 
and to take their slaves with them, just as others could 
their property. In this way the South would have an 
equal chance, as Mr. Calhoun contended she ought, in 
the settlement of the territories. 



CHAPTER XIII. 

Death of Mr. Calhoun— Funeral Honors— His Family— Personal Ap- 
pearance — Character — Habits in Private Life— Mental Powers — 
Style as a Speaker and Writer— Work on Government— Manner as 
an Orator— Course as a Statesman— Popularity — Memory. 

Faithful to his duty unto the end, Death found Mr. 
Calhoun at his post. Feeble though he was in body, 
to the very close of his earthly pilgrimage he was sus- 
tained by the wonderful energy and power of an intel- 
lect that never knew what it was to be dependent. 
Like Chatham, wrapped up in flannels, he occasionally 
crawled to the Senate chamber to take his friends by 
the hand, and to encourage them to stand firmly by the 
rio-hts of the South ; and on the 13th of March, his 
voice was heard for the last time in debate, no longer 
clear as a trumpet, but often giving way with the failure 
of the powers of utterance — quivering from weakness 
and husky with emotion, yet still indicating the uncon- 
querable will and determination of his character. It 
was the triumph of mind over matter, — of the immortal 
spirit over the frail body that contained it ! 

The last words of Mr. Calhoun in the Senate were 
uttered on this occasion, in defence of his proposition 
for the amendment of the Constitution, which had been 
assailed by several senators in the course of the dis- 

19* 



442 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1850. 

cussion. The scene was an exciting one ; he was 
nearlv overcome, and returned to his private room 
only to die. The slavery question was the engrossing 
subject that occupied his mind. He wished to see the 
Union preserved, but he feared that the slaveholding 
states would be driven to secede. His friends were 
not interdicted from visiting him, and he conversed with 
them freely until it was evident that his powers were 
fast giving way, and that his ever-active mind was wear- 
ing out the body. At intervals he employed himself in 
writing, or in looking over his papers : this taxed his 
strength less than conversation, yet intense and earnest 
thought, like the vampire, was constantly draining the 
life-blood from his heart. 

His son, John B. Calhoun, who is a physician, was 
with him for several weeks previous to his death, and 
other friends almost equalled his filial devotion in their 
kind attentions. On the 30th of March, it could no 
longer be doubted that the hours of the great statesman 
would soon be numbered. In the morning he was 
restless and much weaker than he had ever before been. 
He sat up, however, for a couple of hours during the 
day ; and toward evening, the stimulants which had 
been employed to protract his life seemed to have re- 
gained their power, and he conversed with apparent 
ease and freedom, mainly upon the absorbing topic, the 
slavery question. About half-past twelve, that night, 
he commenced breathing very heavily — so much so as 
to alarm his son. The latter inquired how he felt; he 
replied that he was unusually wakeful, but desired his 
son to lie down. His pulse was then very low, and he 
said he was sinking ; but he refused to take any more 



1850.] HIS DEATH. 443 

stimulants. The son lay down, but in a little more 
than an hour was aroused, by his father calling in a 
feeble voice, "John, come to me!" His respiration 
now denoted great physical weakness, though it did not 
appear to be difficult. When his son approached him, 
he held out his arm, and remarked that there was no 
pulsation at the wrist. 

He then directed his son to take his watch and papers 
and put them in his trunk, after which he said that the 
medicine given to restore him had had a delightful effect 
and produced an agreeable perspiration. In reply to 
an inquirv as to how he had rested, he stated that he 
had not rested at all ; but he assured his son that he 
felt no pain, and had felt none during the whole attack. 
A little after five o'clock on the morning of the 31st, his 
son asked him if he was comfortable. "I am perfectly 
comfortable," he replied. These were his last words. 
Shortly before six o'clock, he made a sign to his son 
to approach the bed. Extending his hand, he grasped 
that of his son, looked him intently in the face, and 
moved his lips, but was unable to articulate. Other 
friends were now called in, and a fruitless effort was 
made to revive him. Meanwhile he was perfectly con- 
scious, and his eyes retained their brightness, and his 
countenance its natural expression. But the golden 
cord was about to be severed— and in a few moments 
he drew a deep inspiration, his eyes closed, and his 
spirit passed, " like the anthem of a breeze, away." 

The death of Mr. Calhoun was announced in the 
Senate, in a most impressive manner, by his friend and 
colleague, Judge Butler, on the first of April. Eloquent 



444 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1850. 

and feeling addresses were also made by Henry Clay 
and Daniel Webster, the great rivals of the deceased 
in talents and in fame. Appropriate funeral honors 
were, of course, paid to his memory by the assembled 
representatives of the states. The sad event was not, 
altogether unexpected ; and it elicited, at Washington 
not only, but in every town throughout the wide Union, 
a general and sincere expression of regret. Forms and 
ceremonies may be but idle show, yet this was the 
genuine homage paid to departed worth. 

On the 2d day of April, the funeral ceremonies were 
held, and the remains of Mr. Calhoun were then con- 
veyed to Charleston, accompanied by a committee of 
the Senate. They found a whole people in tears. 
South Carolina truly mourned her loss ; and the citizens 
of her metropolis, with all the outward manifestations 
of mourning — a funeral procession, halls and balconies 
draperied in crape, the tolling of bells, muffled drums 
and plaintive music, drooping plumes and shrouded 
banners — received all that was left of him who had 
constituted the chief glory of his native state, and 
whose greatness, like the giant pine of her virgin forests, 
towered far heavenward. 

The body of Mr. Calhoun was temporarily deposited 
in a vault in the cemetery of St. Philip's Church, 
Charleston, there to await the action of the Legislature 
— the family consenting, at the request of the governor, 
that the state should take charge of the remains of her 
favorite son. They are to be removed to Columbia, 
the seat of government of the state, where a monument 
is to be erected to his memory — and thus the legislators 
of South Carolina be constantly reminded of the virtues, 



1850.] PERSONAL APPEARANCE. 445 

and the manly dignity and character, of her distinguish- 
ed statesman. 

Mr. Calhoun was married in early life to a cousin by 
the name of Caldwell, who survived him. She has 
ever been remarked for the quiet grace and ease of her 
manners, her unassuming deportment, and the mingled 
simplicity and dignity of her character ; and in the 
private circles of Washington, once adorned by her 
presence, but to which she may never again return, 
she is still remembered with affection and regret. They 
had three sons : Andrew P. Calhoun, a planter; Patrick, 
an officer in the army ; and John B., a physician. 
They had several daughters, also, one of whom married 
Thomas G. Clemson, of Pennsylvania, late charge 
d'affaires to Belgium. 

No one ever saw Mr. Calhoun for the first time, 
without being forcibly impressed with the conviction 
of his mental superiority. There was that in his air 
and in his appearance which carried with it the assur- 
ance that he was no common man. He had not Hv- 
perion's curls, nor the front of Jove. Miss Martineau 
termed him, in her Travels in America, the cast-iron 
man, " who looked as if he had never been born." In 
person he was tall and slender, and his frame appeared 
gradually to become more and more attenuated till he 
died. His features were harsh and angular in their 
outlines, presenting a combination of the Greek and 
the Roman. A serene and almost stony calm was 
habitual to them when in repose, but when enlivened 
in conversation or debate, their play was remarkable — 
the lights were brought out into bolder relief, and the 
shadows thrown into deeper shade. 



44G JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1850. 

His countenance, when at rest, indicated abstraction 
or a preoccupied air, and a stranger on approaching 
him could scarcely avoid an emotion of fear ; yet he 
could not utter a word before the fire of genius blazed 
from his eye and illumined his expressive features. 
His individuality was stamped upon his acute and in- 
telligent face, and the lines of character and thought 
were clearly and strongly defined. His forehead was 
broad, tolerably high, and compact, denoting the mass 
of brain behind it. Until he had passed the grand 
climacteric, he wore his hair short and brushed it back, 
so that it stood erect on the top of his head, like bristles 
on the angry boar, or " quills upon the fretful porcupine," 
but toward the close of his life he suffered it to grow 
long, and to fall in heavy masses over his temples. But 
his eyes were his most striking features : they were 
dark blue, large and brilliant ; in repose glowing with 
a steady light, in action fairly emitting flashes of fire. 

His character was marked and decided, not prema- 
turely exhibiting its peculiarities, yet formed and per- 
fected at an early age. He was firm and prompt, man- 
ly and independent. His sentiments were noble and 
elevated, and everything mean or grovelling was foreign 
to his nature. He was easy in his manners, and affable 
and dignified. His attachments were warm and endur- 
ing ; he did not manifest his affection with enthusiastic 
fervor, but with deep earnestness and sincerity. He 
was kind, generous and charitable ; honest and frank ; 
faithful to his friends, but somewhat inclined to be un- 
forgiving toward his enemies. He was attached to his 
principles and prejudices with equal tenacity ; and when 
he had adopted an opinion, so strong was his reliance 



1850.] CHARACTER AND HABITS. 447 

upon the correctness of his own judgment, that he often 
doubted the wisdom and sincerity of those who dis- 
agreed with him. He never shrank from the perform- 
ance of any duty, however painful it might be, — that it 
was a duty, was sufficient for him. He possessed pride 
of character in no ordinary degree, and, withal, not a 
little vanity, which is said always to accompany true 
genius. His devotion to the South was not sectional, 
so much as it was the natural consequence of his views 
with reference to the theory of the government ; and 
his patriotism, like his fame, was coextensive with the 
Union. 

In private life he was fitted to be loved and respected. 
Like Jefferson, Madison, Marshall, and the younger 
Adams, he was simple in his habits. When at home, he 
usually rose at day-break, and, if the weather admitted, 
took a walk over his farm. He breakfasted at half-past 
seven, and then retired to his office, which stood near 
his dwelling house, where he wrote till dinner time, or 
three o'clock. After dinner he read or conversed with 
his family till sunset, when he took another walk. His 
tea hour was eight o'clock ; he then joined his family 
again, and passed the time in conversation or reading 
till ten o'clock, when he retired to rest. As a citizen, 
he was without blemish ; he wronged no one ; and there 
were no ugly spots on his character to dim the brilliancy 
of his public career. His social qualities were endear- 
ing, and his conversational powers fascinating in the 
extreme. He loved to talk with the young; he was 
especially animated and instructive when engaged in 
conversation with them, and scarcely ever failed to in- 
spire a sincere attachment in the breasts of those who 



448 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1850. 

listened to him. He frequently corresponded, too, with 
young men, and almost the last letter he wrote, was 
addressed to a protege attending a law school in New 
York, and was replete with kind advice and with expres- 
sions of friendly interest. 

He conversed, perhaps, with too great freedom. He 
prided himself on being unreserved in the expression of 
his opinions, and yet this was a fault in his character ; 
for in the transaction of business, and in deciding and 
acting upon important political questions, he was ordi- 
narily cautious and prudent. To his very frankness, 
therefore, may be attributed, not the misrepresentations, 
but the occasion of the misrepresentations, of which he 
was the victim. He often complained that he was not 
understood, but he sometimes forgot that those who 
would not comprehend him. might have been already 
prejudiced by some remark of his, made at the wrong 
time, or in the wrong presence. 

His disposition was reflective, and he spent hours at 
a time in earnest thought. But he was exceedingly 
fond of reading history and books of travel. Works on 
government, on the rise and fall of empires, on the im- 
provement and decline of the races of mankind and the 
struggles and contests of one with another, always at- 
tracted his attention. Indeed, his whole life was one 
of study and thought. 

In his dress he was very plain, and rarely appeared 
in anything except a simple suit of black. His consti- 
tution was not naturally robust ; but notwithstanding 
the ceaseless labors of his mind, by a strict attention to 
regimen and the avoidance of all stimulants, his life was 
prolonged almost to the allotted three score and ten. 



1850.] MENTAL POWERS. 449 

To say that he possessed a great mind, would be only 
repeating a trite remark. It was one of extraordinary 
compass and power. His rivals and compeers were 
intellectual giants, and among them he occupied no 
subordinate position. The most prominent character- 
istics of his mind were its massiveness and solidity, its 
breadth and scope, the clearness of its perceptions, and 
the directness with which they were expressed. It was 
well-balanced, because it was self-poised, and he did 
not often " o'erstep the modesty of nature/' 

He was neither metaphysical nor subtle, in the sense 
in which mere schoolmen use those terms. He had 
studied the philosophy as well as the rules of logic ; or, 
if not that, the faculty of reasoning with accuracy was 
natural to him. He was capable of generalizing and of 
drawing nice distinctions. He was shrewd in argument, 
and quick to observe the weak points of an antagonist. 
Of dialectics he was a complete master, whether syn- 
thetically or analytically considered. But his great 
power lay in analysis. He could resolve a complex 
argument or an idea into its original parts, with as much 
facility as the most expert mechanic could take a watch 
in pieces ; and it was his very exquisiteness in this re- 
spect, that caused him to be regarded by many as so- 
phistical and metaphysical. 

He was fond of tracing out the causes which led to 
an effect, and of considering the vast combinations of 
circumstances that produced a certain result, or what 
in politics, he called a juncture or a crisis. In the readi- 
ness and rapidity with which he analyzed and classified 
his thoughts, he had no superior, if he had an equal, 
among the public men of his day. While at the law 



450 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1850. 

school in Litchfield, he accustomed himself to arrange 
the order of his thoughts, before taking part in a debate, 
not upon paper but in his mind, and to depend on his 
memory, which was peculiarly retentive. In this man- 
ner both his mind and memory were strengthened, and 
the former was made to resemble a store-house full to 
overflowing, but with everything in its appropriate 
place and readv for anv occasion. 

Like his life, his style was simple and pure, yet, for 
this very reason, often rising to an elevation of grandeur 
and dignity, which elaborate finish can never attain. 
It was modelled after the ancient classics, and distin- 
guished for its clearness, directness, and energetic earn- 
estness. His words were well chosen, and showed 
severe discipline in his early studies ; but he never 
stopped to pick or cull them in the midst of a speech, 
for at such times his ideas seemed to come forth full 
draperied, like Minerva from the brain of Jupiter. He 
occasionally made use of a startling figure, or an anti- 
thetical expression, but there was no redundancy of or- 
nament, though — if that could be a blemish — there was 
a redundancv of thought. 

He was in the habit of laying down a few simple ab- 
stract truths, and arguing upon and explaining and 
elucidating them. Almost every sentence, therefore, 
in one of his speeches, was a political text ; and the 
arguments and illustrations which he employed to es- 
tablish the correctness of his great principles were the 
clippings of the diamond — scintillations of the brilliant 
thought from which they emanated. 

His speeches, letters, and reports would fill volumes ; 
yet they are well worthy of collection in a permanent 



1850.] MANNER AS AN ORATOR. 451 

form. They contain a vast fund of information with 
reference to the political history of the country, and 
mines of thought on political science. For some years 
previous to his death, he was engaged on a work in 
three parts, entitled " The Theory of Governments." 
The first part was completed early in 1849, and the 
two remaining parts were nearly finished at the time 
of his decease. 

It has been said that he was no orator. It is true 
that he did not cultivate the graces of oratory, but he 
wielded its power with a giant's force. In discussing 
serious questions, he was usually calm though impres- 
sive ; and when he first rose to speak, he almost always 
bent forward as if from diffidence. But when fully 
aroused, he became stern and erect in his bearing, his 
voice rang loud and shrill, and his eyes glistened like 
coals of fire. A steady flow of words came from his 
lips, and sometimes they rushed so rapidly that he 
seemed obliged to clip them off to make room. In- 
tense earnestness characterized his delivery, and this 
is one of the highest attributes of true eloquence. In 
listening to him you felt that he was sincere, and it was 
impossible to look at him without being moved. 

As a statesman, his course was independent and high- 
minded. Principles he regarded as practical things, 
and he was firm in adhering to them, and bold and 
fearless in attacking error. He united the fiery ardor 
of Mirabeau to the steadiness of Malesherbes — the 
daring of Canning to the moderation of Liverpool. 
Few men possessed a more happy faculty of ingratiating 
themselves into the favor of new acquaintances ; but 
he never practiced the arts of the demagogue, and, as 



452 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1850. 

he used to say, he was " an object of as great curiosity 
to people outside of a circle of five miles in this state 
[South Carolina], as anywhere else." He was ambi- 
tious, but his ambition was of a lofty character. He 
was not indifferent to party obligations, but he thought 
thev ought to be limited to matters of detail and minor 
questions of policy, and not extended to important 
principles. 

He was no mere theorist. He never desired, as we 
have seen in his- course in regard to the currency and 
the tariff, to suddenly undo a system of bad measures, 
and adopt an opposite system. He favored gradual 
changes, and this is high evidence of the practical char- 
acter of his mind. He lived, too, to behold the triumph 
of most of the great principles for which he had con- 
tended, and this is a proof of anything but an overween- 
ing love for theories and abstractions. 

The theory of this government was for many years 
his study ; he was perfectly familiar with our foreign 
relations ; but upon the currency question he was espe- 
cially at home, and he discussed it with the sagacity of 
a philosopher, the foresight of a statesman, and the prac- 
tical skill of a financier. 

Independence and integrity were conspicuous traits 
in Mr. Calhoun. " I never know," he said, " what 
South Carolina thinks of a measure. I never consult 
her. I act to the best of my judgment, and according 
to my conscience. If she approves, well and good. If 
she does not, or wishes any one else to take my place, 
I am ready to vacate. We are even." He w T as no 
friend to progressive democracy, nor did he think that 
liberty and licentiousness were synonymous terms. 



1850.] MEMORY. 453 

" People do not understand liberty or majorities," he re- 
marked. " The will of a majority is the will of a rabble. 
Progressive democracy is incompatible with liberty. 
Those who study after this fashion are yet in the horn- 
book, the a, b, c, of governments. Democracy is level- 
ling — this is inconsistent with true liberty. Anarchy is 
more to be dreaded than despotic power. It is the 
worst tyranny. The best government is that which 
draws least from the people, and is scarcely felt, except 
to execute justice, and to protect the people from animal 
violation of law." 

These opinions undoubtedly indicate the existence of 
a morbid melancholy in the breast of their author — of a 
proneness to look upon the dark side of human nature 
— yet they were uttered in all sincerity. 

Possessing such exalted talents, the question may be 
asked, why Mr. Calhoun did not reach the presidency ; 
for his aspirations were often turned in that direction, 
though he w r ould sacrifice no principle to reach that 
high station. A late writer* has enumerated three 
obstacles — his unconquerable independence, his incor- 
ruptible integrity, and the philosophical sublimity of his 
genius. That the first two contributed to this result is 
highly probable, but if by that other quality is meant 
an elevation of his genius entirely above the compre- 
hension of the multitude, it is unjust to his character. 
He possessed no such transcendental faculty or attri- 
bute. Truth, in its simplicity and beauty — as Mr. 
Calhoun presented it — goes home to every heart. He 
was understood and appreciated by the masses. He 
was popular with the people, but not with the politicians. 
* Gallery of Illustrious Americans, No. 2. 



JWJSr 

454 JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN. [1850. 

The death of Mr. Calhoun was a loss to the Union' 
but to South Carolina the blow was peculiarly severe. 
For more than forty years she had trusted and confided 
in him, and she never found him faithless or remiss in 
his duty. He had received many honors at her hands, 
but not one was undeserved, — she owed him a debt of 
gratitude which she could never repay. She has pro- 
duced many distinguished men ; yet his memory and 
fame will be dearer than those of her Lawrences, her 
Gadsdens, her Pinckneys, her Rutledges, or her Haynes. 
Her soil contains no nobler dust than that of John 
Caldwell Calhoun. 

" Statesman, yet friend to truth ! — of soul sincere, 
In action faithful, and in honor clear, 
Who broke no promise, served no private end, 
Who sought no title, and who lost no friend !" 



THE END. 



NEW AND POPULAR BOOKS 

RECENTLY PUBLISHED 

BY JAMES M. ALDEE AUBURN, E Y 



UNITED STATES EXPLORING EXPEDITIONS. 

Voyage of the U. S. Exploring Squadron, commanded by Capt. Charles 
Wilfcea, together with Explorations and Discoveries made by Admi- 
ral D'Urvitle, Capt. Ross, and an account of the Expedition to the 
Dead Sea, under Lieut. Lynch. By John S. Jenkins, author of Life of 
Silas Wright, History of the War in Mexico, etc. etc. 8vo., muslin, 
with numerous illustrations. (Illustrated title-page.) $2 25. 

The same. Sheep extra. " '; $2 50. 

THE LIFE OF JAMES K. POLK, 
Late President of the United States, with Selections from his Speeches, 
Messages, etc. By John S. Jenkins. 400 pp., 12mo., with a Portrait 
on steel. $1 25. 

THE LIFE OF JOHN C. CALHOUN, 

The distinguished. Statesman of South Carolina, with Selections from 
his Speeches and State Papers. By John S. Jenkins, author of the 
U. S. Exploring Expeditions, Life of James K. Polk, Life of Silas 
Wright, History of the War with Mexico, etc. etc. 400 pp., 12mo., 
with Portrait on steel. Muslin, (uniform with Polk.) $1 25. 

LIFE OF SILAS WRIGHT. 

Being the History of the Times of one of the ablest of American States- 
men. With Portrait on steel. By J. S. Jenkins, author of Political 
History of New York, the Life of General Jackson, History of the 
War with Mexico, etc. etc. Fifth edition. >l 25. 

POEM 3 

By H. W. Parker. 12mo., muslin, gilt back. 238 pp. loots. 
"There is true poetry in the author's soul, as evinced alike in ins 
nietred and prose poems." — K Y. Commercial Advertiser. 

REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR: 

Embracing the Causes of the War; Responsibility of its Commence- 
ment; the Purposes of the American Government in its Prosecu- 
tion; 'its Benefits and its Evils. By Charles T. Porter. 12mo., 220 
pp., muslin. 63 cts. 

LETTERS OF JOHN QUINCY ADAMS TO HIS SON, 
On the Bible and its Teachings. With an Introduction by Hon. Horace 

Greeley. ISmo., muslin gilt. 38 cts. 



' W 4s 89« ; 













« ^ cr • 

%> ^^^/°- ^V^Si-% c^.c^.^ 



^ o ^ 




lO-A 




^0 



V »!*•* > V 



-h* 








4 0^ 









o • » 



A^ o°"S ^ 



A& ^?ft 





•• ^ A^ * 

• c5> ^ • 







m 









o V 

^'•■•••^/aX'" ^ •■•- 












° v JiSvV^ * ^y ^ * ^!1® * <t? ^, - 






v A o v ***** *> V .•iiif* «£* a* 






* o u o < VJ 



o 

2 



5 /T^ 



HECKMAN 

BINDERY INC. 




JUN 89 

HES.. 
46962 



N. MANCHESTER, 
INDIANA 46962 



; : s •' \ '■': \ \ \\i : \ ': '• , ■' ■'■[■.■ .' ■'.■■'.:': • 1 . ! ' ' : ; : ". : ! ' ■ ; . : ■ .' ' • ' 

:•;'"'' ■ : : - : ' : " . ■ * ■ .' ! '. '■. '. ' ! . J •!"'•'• i '■ ■■•■ : :''■•:• - : ■• ■ 

! ' * : i ' : '. : ' : : : '.'■ - : " ; . : ". : '. : '- ' • * | - : • ■ i : {'■'■'■' '' "■*:.-'• *; \ \ 


■ : i ■..-.'.-. ' ' ' 

" • ' ;••.'. 

. • . • .;.-.-.•.■ ■ " . ; • ■ 

• " ' ' - •! ":'.l v !':••;■■. i . : • { " ■■ ■ 

' '■ " ■ • ' '. ' - '■ ■ . 

' i !( U ■'; ■ • ' • J _ _ ' 



i 

















' 







